Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[PaintMyHouse]

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

Men and women breed. Accepted.
If men and women don't breed the species dies. Accepted.
Most sex has nothing at all to do with breeding. Accepted.
The sex homosexuals normally have is like the sex most heterosexuals normally have, non-reproductive. Accepted.
The same is true of masturbation, for all humans. It is for pleasure only. Accepted.

I have no problem here but you do. You seem to want sex to equal babies apparently, and it never has. They are a byproduct - accept that and move on. It's biology, it's reality, and it's absolutely true...

 

[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.

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

I follow the rules, like Mitt Romney.

Are the rules wrong, yep.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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

They had biological parents but your little mom, dad, 2.1 kids, and a dog with a house in the suburbs is a new thing. That is not who normally raised the children. Look it up.

 

[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.

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?

Most sex doesn't lead to babies and we all pay for things we don't like or approve of. Time to grow up now.

And marriage isn't about children, never has been. They are a byproduct of sex, not marriage.

 

[Faun]

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

Moron, asking you to clarify your typo was not the extent of my post. You're losing it by harping on that.

 

[Faun]

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?

How many time must this be explained to you ... ? Equal protection under the law.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Gays marrying doesn't take anything away from heteros marrying, therefore your argument is ridiculous that the species is going to die out if gay marriage is legalized.

And btw, unmarried parents get virtually every government benefit related to children that married couples do.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

It doesn't matter how many times you point out that irrefutable fact, they will weasel and deny and post non sequiturs until you get sick of dealing with them.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

How many time must this be explained to you ... ? Equal protection under the law.

They already have equal protection under the law. You can post your idiocy 10,000 times, but that won't make it a valid argument.

 

[Faun]

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?

Actually, yours is the dead argument as you've failed miserably to prove married couples get "paid for the babies."

 

[Faun]

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?

How many time must this be explained to you ... ? Equal protection under the law.

They already have equal protection under the law. You can post your idiocy 10,000 times, but that won't make it a valid argument.

Until they have the right to marry the person they love, no, they don't have equal protection. You're about to learn that the hard way once the Supreme Court rules on the matter. Then I get to sit back and watch you bitch & moan in other threads about activist judges

 

[Pop23]

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

Men and women breed. Accepted.
If men and women don't breed the species dies. Accepted.
Most sex has nothing at all to do with breeding. Accepted.
The sex homosexuals normally have is like the sex most heterosexuals normally have, non-reproductive. Accepted.
The same is true of masturbation, for all humans. It is for pleasure only. Accepted.

I have no problem here but you do. You seem to want sex to equal babies apparently, and it never has. They are a byproduct - accept that and move on. It's biology, it's reality, and it's absolutely true...

No babies are ever born without the Union of male to female.

Biologically speaking that makes the two groups unique.

 

[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.

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.

Gays marrying doesn't take anything away from heteros marrying, therefore your argument is ridiculous that the species is going to die out if gay marriage is legalized.

And btw, unmarried parents get virtually every government benefit related to children that married couples do.

Ridiculous is the idea that we don't SEPERATE groups or individuals based on ability.

When was the last time a females best time in the 100 meter dash would have qualified for the men's olympic event?

 

[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.

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?

How many time must this be explained to you ... ? Equal protection under the law.

They already have equal protection under the law. You can post your idiocy 10,000 times, but that won't make it a valid argument.

Until they have the right to marry the person they love, no, they don't have equal protection. You're about to learn that the hard way once the Supreme Court rules on the matter. Then I get to sit back and watch you bitch & moan in other threads about activist judges

You realize the government can't demand love, right.

Link to the governments love test.

 

[Faun]

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?

How many time must this be explained to you ... ? Equal protection under the law.

They already have equal protection under the law. You can post your idiocy 10,000 times, but that won't make it a valid argument.

Until they have the right to marry the person they love, no, they don't have equal protection. You're about to learn that the hard way once the Supreme Court rules on the matter. Then I get to sit back and watch you bitch & moan in other threads about activist judges

You realize the government can't demand love, right.

Link to the governments love test.

Where the fuck did you pluck that response to my post from??

Where did I say this had anything to do with the government requiring married people love each other? Are you that fucked in the head that that's the conclusion your brain translated my words into??

Marriage is a fundamental right in the pursuit of happiness. That right is denied whenever the government refuses to issue a marriage licence to a person because the person they love and wish to be legally married to, in their pursuit of happiness, happens to be of the same gender. Compounding that injustice, their equal protection is also denied since other individuals are not denied that same exact right because the person they seek to marry happens to be of the opposite gender.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

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

Wrong, bigot. 90% of married couples have children...nothing in that stat says they had their own children. In fact, about 1.5 million babies are born every year through assisted reproductive technology...like gays use to have their chidren...which they DO have, bigot.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

ROFL ^ dumb ass thinks you have to be married to have kids.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

It's funny how you get all jacked out of shape over creationism, you talk about how people evolved. But when it's pointed out we also evolved with man/woman parents, nuh uh, that doesn't matter. You are just as religious as the Christians, obviously we did

No Kaz, you don' t hate children..you don't even "hate" gays...you just think about the way they have sex and you get all hinky.

You're still an anti gay bigot, just not necessarily a hateful one.

It's "best" for children to be raised in rich, white homes...good thing it's not only them that gets to have children, eh?

 

[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.

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

Wrong, bigot. 90% of married couples have children...nothing in that stat says they had their own children. In fact, about 1.5 million babies are born every year through assisted reproductive technology...like gays use to have their chidren...which they DO have, bigot.

Operative words:

"Have to"

That's an absolute

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Gays marrying doesn't take anything away from heteros marrying, therefore your argument is ridiculous that the species is going to die out if gay marriage is legalized.

And btw, unmarried parents get virtually every government benefit related to children that married couples do.

Ridiculous is the idea that we don't SEPERATE groups or individuals based on ability.

When was the last time a females best time in the 100 meter dash would have qualified for the men's olympic event?

Anyone need any more proof that gay rights have won?

WTF does that post mean?