Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[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.

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

Except that appears nowhere in the noted post.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

But it's not a distinction civil marriage cares anything about. You're manufacturing marriage rules that do not exist.

 

[Pop23]

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?

Do you know that blind people can't get drivers licenses?

Is that discrimination?

Is the denial of the license based on ability?

 

[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.

But it's not a distinction civil marriage cares anything about. You're manufacturing marriage rules that do not exist.

You realize what thread your on?

Go read the OP and get back to me.

K?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

It doesn't make the two groups unique. No babies are born to infertile man/woman couples. No babies are born to couples who successfully practice birth control.

 

[RKMBrown]

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?

It means Pop thinks separating gays from the population is the sporting thing to do.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

Do you know that blind people can't get drivers licenses?

Is that discrimination?

Is the denial of the license based on ability?

Can you name one state that requires a man/woman couple to have the ability to have babies in order to get a marriage license?

Name one. One state.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

Except that appears nowhere in the noted post.

Yes or no, pop, gays can have kids. You can't have it both ways. You can't say one group and one group only is necessary for our species to survive then say you didn't mean gays can't have kids and we'd all be dead if everyone was gay. Make up your mind, either all groups can have kids or not.

 

[mdk]

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?

Do you know that blind people can't get drivers licenses?

Is that discrimination?

Is the denial of the license based on ability?

Driving is a privilege in this country not a right. The courts have ruled marriage to be a right on numerous occasions. Maybe if you shout at the rain some more it will change the weather but I doubt it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Except that appears nowhere in the noted post.

Yes or no, pop, gays can have kids. You can't have it both ways.

Until he proves the impossible, which is to prove that marriage licenses are only issued to fertile couples,

then he has lost his argument anyway. Everything else he says is just his way of denying that he is wrong.

 

[kaz]

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.

Asked and answered. The idea is you acknowledge my response and build on it, you don't repeat your deflections. The thread is about what taxpayers are paying for, they are paying for babies. Time go grow up. Get it now?

Taxpayers are paying for babies to perpetuate the species. Your argument really is shallow and vacuous, I guess it's all you have. Taxpayers as Seawytch pointed out get babies 90% of the time from heterosexual couples. That heterosexual couples have more sex and make waffles is irrelevant. It's the babies they paid for. Time to grow up. Get it now?

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

OK, seriously, are you illiterate or do you just not bother to read. How do you possibly read my OP post and think I defined marriage? What is wrong with you? Seriously? The tax breaks are about babies. Again per your inane response to the first part of this post, couples can do other things. They already share expenses and save money. Tax breaks are not to give them more money for shacking up. The money is to support having kids and hopefully the wife staying home to raise them. Do you have any processing power at all?

And what about addressing my question?

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

So answer the question

 

[kaz]

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.

So you can cry about typos but I can't respond to your crying about typos. Got it. And noted.

You didn't address my point, how do you make an ex-ante decision on a tax break when you don't know if they are part of the 90% of the heterosexual marriages that will have children or the 10% that won't until you have ex-post data on that? Simple question.

We do know ex-ante if gays will have babies where they are the biological parents. Since it's zero percent ex-post, it's zero percent ex-ante

 

[kaz]

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.

How many times must this be explained to you ... ? Gays are equal under the law. You still can't name a single gay the law changed for because they were gay

 

[Faun]

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.

So you can cry about typos but I can't respond to your crying about typos. Got it. And noted.

You didn't address my point, how do you make an ex-ante decision on a tax break when you don't know if they are part of the 90% of the heterosexual marriages that will have children or the 10% that won't until you have ex-post data on that? Simple question.

We do know ex-ante if gays will have babies where they are the biological parents. Since it's zero percent ex-post, it's zero percent ex-ante

You're still lying. The marriage tax break is not about having children.

When do you stop lying?

 

[kaz]

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

So it's about patting fags on the back and saying you're gay and it's OK, is it? They need collective validation as I always said, at least someone finally admitted it

 

[Faun]

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.

How many times must this be explained to you ... ? Gays are equal under the law. You still can't name a single gay the law changed for because they were gay

You too will have to learn the hard way with the Supreme Court rules. Then I get to hear you whine about it all over again.

 

[Faun]

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

So it's about patting fags on the back and saying you're gay and it's OK, is it? They need collective validation as I always said, at least someone finally admitted it

If that's how you need to frame "equal protection," how sad for you.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

Asked and answered. The idea is you acknowledge my response and build on it, you don't repeat your deflections. The thread is about what taxpayers are paying for, they are paying for babies. Time go grow up. Get it now?

Taxpayers are paying for babies to perpetuate the species. Your argument really is shallow and vacuous, I guess it's all you have. Taxpayers as Seawytch pointed out get babies 90% of the time from heterosexual couples. That heterosexual couples have more sex and make waffles is irrelevant. It's the babies they paid for. Time to grow up. Get it now?

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

OK, seriously, are you illiterate or do you just not bother to read. How do you possibly read my OP post and think I defined marriage? What is wrong with you? Seriously? The tax breaks are about babies. Again per your inane response to the first part of this post, couples can do other things. They already share expenses and save money. Tax breaks are not to give them more money for shacking up. The money is to support having kids and hopefully the wife staying home to raise them. Do you have any processing power at all?

And what about addressing my question?

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

So answer the question

These taxes, that you are so concerned with, name them?

Do singles and unmarried couples not get the same breaks? Yep, because as a society that needs children to have a future we support people getting married and making babies, which they very often do. Nothing shocking there...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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

So it's about patting fags on the back and saying you're gay and it's OK, is it? They need collective validation as I always said, at least someone finally admitted it

No, it's about making them equal before the law, as in, we have a state sponsored and approved contract called marriage, which you can also engage in even if your partner has the same parts. Pretty simple to understand, if you have morals that is. That would explain why you can't get this...

 

[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.

It doesn't make the two groups unique. No babies are born to infertile man/woman couples. No babies are born to couples who successfully practice birth control.

You would be correct if no babies were born of male/female coupling.

Otherwise, you kinda look goofy.

OBTW: when was the last time a same sex couple required birth control not to procreate?