Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[kaz]

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."

Liar, you are a human being. You know the reason there are tax breaks with marriage are families. Even you are not stupid enough to not know that. Without babies, couples already share costs and save money. No one would give marriage tax breaks other than the expectation of a family.

It may be the most bizarre argument leftists make that if we believe you are serious, you are 10 times as stupid as if we think you are lying. Like duh, dar, society wants to give people already sharing costs and saving money more money. It has nothing to do with creating a family. Yeah, even you are not that dumb

 

[kaz]

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

If Mike is gay and loves Steve, he cannot marry him. OK, let's try the equal protection test. If Mike is not gay, can he marry Steve? No. Your argument is fail

Ouch, I should have warned you about that loose plank. Sorry you stepped on it and it whacked you in the face.

And the whole concept laws would change based on you want something different is just retarded

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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

If Mike is gay and loves Steve, he cannot marry him. OK, let's try the equal protection test. If Mike is not gay, can he marry Steve? No. Your argument is fail

Ouch, I should have warned you about that loose plank. Sorry you stepped on it and it whacked you in the face.

And the whole concept laws would change based on you want something different is just retarded

Tell us, what other state-sponsored contract (used to) require one to be male and the other female? Oh right, there isn't one. Your argument is as dead as your dogma and your tiny mind. Luckily the grownups have taken over, meaning you, the child, has now lost.

 

[kaz]

Link to the governments love test.

Marriage is a fundamental right in the pursuit of happiness.

I already told you that you are quoting the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. How stupid are you?

BTW, the Declaration of independence mentions God 5 times, since according to you that is now the supreme law of the land, does that mean religion in government is OK?

It even says our rights were endowed by our creator. LOL. You are an idiot

 

[RKMBrown]

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

If Mike is gay and loves Steve, he cannot marry him. OK, let's try the equal protection test. If Mike is not gay, can he marry Steve? No. Your argument is fail

Ouch, I should have warned you about that loose plank. Sorry you stepped on it and it whacked you in the face.

And the whole concept laws would change based on you want something different is just retarded

Ayup Kaz thinks not being able to marry is equivalent to being able to marry. And that's why we see Kaz as a complete moron.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

No one would give marriage tax breaks other than the expectation of a family.

False. Married couples get a lot of breaks, just for being married, because they are good for society. Committed, stable, financially secure in many cases, all good, kids or no kids. Just keeping the boys home at night makes it worth it. They are only in trouble with their wives, which husbands always are anyway.

 

[Pop23]

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?

Gay people get pregnant the same way heterosexual people do. Why do you keep asking dumb questions?

Not with their same sex partners.

Not very unique is it.

And when was the last time a same sex coupling required birth control?

When was the last time masturbation created children... oh wait it does every day. FYI being a moron does not make you look smart.

Sure, if the partners are opposite sex.

Another absolute.

Public school graduate?

Since when did someone have to be a "partner" to have sex? I graduated, yes.

Partner implies two. Of course one can I suppose, but a penthouse letter would be a more applicable place for you to post that.

 

[Pop23]

1000 gay men, 100,000 gay men, a million gay men alone cannot create a single child

?

And neither can millions upon millions of straight people, even young ones, no matter how hard they try. Tell you what, let's have two classes, those that can reproduce and those that can't. Now, what difference does that make in how they are treated? Does one class get balloons, are they closer to God, do we give them a pony?

There Ya go, attacking the disabled

Not at all. I make no distinction, you do...

You do realize that by "trying" to get pregnant it implies disability when one can't, right?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Link to the governments love test.

Marriage is a fundamental right in the pursuit of happiness.

I already told you that you are quoting the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. How stupid are you?

BTW, the Declaration of independence mentions God 5 times, since according to you that is now the supreme law of the land, does that mean religion in government is OK?

It even says our rights were endowed by our creator. LOL. You are an idiot

The DOI isn't anything, but historical. It has no standing in court, not even a little.

 

[Pop23]

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.

Gays CAN have children, but only when coupling with the opposite gender.

Sorry dude, that's an absolute truth.

So you don't believe in adoption or in envitro. Not very bright or aware, are you?

Evidently he doesn't believe in adoption, envitro, singles having sex, affairs, planned babies, surrogacy, or any other such alternative to mission style husband->wife insemination. Course when you point that out he'll just say that's not what he said. Then he'll go off and say gays can't have kids again.

Which is an obvious deflection.

Thanks.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

1000 gay men, 100,000 gay men, a million gay men alone cannot create a single child

?

And neither can millions upon millions of straight people, even young ones, no matter how hard they try. Tell you what, let's have two classes, those that can reproduce and those that can't. Now, what difference does that make in how they are treated? Does one class get balloons, are they closer to God, do we give them a pony?

There Ya go, attacking the disabled

Not at all. I make no distinction, you do...

You do realize that by "trying" to get pregnant it implies disability when one can't, right?

Nope. Trying is a common thing, AKA, family planning. Timing can be everything.

 

[Pop23]

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.

Gays CAN have children, but only when coupling with the opposite gender.

Sorry dude, that's an absolute truth.

So you don't believe in adoption or in envitro. Not very bright or aware, are you?

Doesn't change the obvious, does it?

 

[Pop23]

1000 gay men, 100,000 gay men, a million gay men alone cannot create a single child

?

And neither can millions upon millions of straight people, even young ones, no matter how hard they try. Tell you what, let's have two classes, those that can reproduce and those that can't. Now, what difference does that make in how they are treated? Does one class get balloons, are they closer to God, do we give them a pony?

There Ya go, attacking the disabled

Not at all. I make no distinction, you do...

You do realize that by "trying" to get pregnant it implies disability when one can't, right?

Nope. Trying is a common thing, AKA, family planning. Timing can be everything.

And applied to only opposite gender couplings.

Thanks again for pointing that out.

 

[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.

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.

Percentage wise that's still pretty small, and even of the adopted that doesn't mean the family didn't have more of their own children. An anecdotal story on that.

If you remember the Woody Allen movie "Radio Days," I babysat the kid who played the intelligent, nerdy kid that is mother compared him to as a kid in the movie. His family is good friends with ours. They are great people. He is a biological son of his parents, but they also adopted a son. So that family gets a pass on the "concept of marriage." LOL

 

[bodecea]

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

If Mike is gay and loves Steve, he cannot marry him. OK, let's try the equal protection test. If Mike is not gay, can he marry Steve? No. Your argument is fail

Ouch, I should have warned you about that loose plank. Sorry you stepped on it and it whacked you in the face.

And the whole concept laws would change based on you want something different is just retarded

Right now, in 36 states he can...after the end of June, he can anywhere in the U.S. Oh...and as of this week, in Ireland too.

 

[kaz]

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.

That's what the thread is about, Sparky. We have a marriage tax break because the concept of marriage is they will have children and hopefully the wife will stay home and raise them. There are other discussions your point would be valid in, but Pop is right on this thread

 

[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.

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?

Once again race whoring, are you? My children didn't grow up in a "white" home, my wife is Korean. Fuck the shit out of you. You can't not be a race slut, can you?

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

Gays CAN have children, but only when coupling with the opposite gender.

Sorry dude, that's an absolute truth.

So you don't believe in adoption or in envitro. Not very bright or aware, are you?

Evidently he doesn't believe in adoption, envitro, singles having sex, affairs, planned babies, surrogacy, or any other such alternative to mission style husband->wife insemination. Course when you point that out he'll just say that's not what he said. Then he'll go off and say gays can't have kids again.

Which is an obvious deflection.

Thanks.

Why all the deflections then, just a hobby of yours?

 

[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.

That's what the thread is about, Sparky. We have a marriage tax break because the concept of marriage is they will have children and hopefully the wife will stay home and raise them. There are other discussions your point would be valid in, but Pop is right on this thread

Incorrect, we have child tax breaks for those. And you don't have to be married to have child tax breaks. You are just making stuff up.

 

[kaz]

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?

Yes, it is discrimination. Liberals think discrimination is always bad, it's not always bad. It can be highly justified, like not giving a blind person a drivers license. I like to screw with them on their lack of understanding of that word