- Thread starter
- #2,121
Maybe they could at least run around or something so they make a more challenging target
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?
- Thread starter kaz
- Start date
Maybe they could at least run around or something so they make a more challenging target
bodecea
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #2,122
So...your in-home culture is Korean...and you live in Korea.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?
bodecea
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #2,123
Ah...look at the cutesie comment.It means Pop thinks separating gays from the population is the sporting thing to do.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?
Maybe they could at least run around or something so they make a more challenging target
- Thread starter
- #2,124
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.ROFL ^ dumb ass thinks you have to be married to have kids.It matters to Biology, in which the vast majority of sex has nothing to do with making babies, and was never meant to.
Why does that matter? You Catholic?
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.
Except that appears nowhere in the noted post.
People are not just babysitters and maids. The idea for kids is a parent of each sex. It's how we evolved The child tax breaks are for food and clothing. The marriage tax breaks are for providing them the ideal environment. I did not say in my OP post we should remove child tax breaks, I said we should remove the marriage one. With heterosexuals we may or may not get the ideal environment for children we are paying for. With gay couples, we know we are not. So if they care for the kids, we pay for that. But we get nothing for paying for the "marriage"
- Thread starter
- #2,125
Yes or no, pop, gays can have kids. You can't have it both ways.ROFL ^ dumb ass thinks you have to be married to have kids.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.
Except that appears nowhere in the noted post.
Until he proves the impossible, which is to prove that marriage licenses are only issued to fertile couples
No one said that, moron
Are you arguing single parents should not have the tax breaks for kids that married people do? Really? So your hatred is not just for gays but also for single parents?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.ROFL ^ dumb ass thinks you have to be married to have kids.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.
Except that appears nowhere in the noted post.
People are not just babysitters and maids. The idea for kids is a parent of each sex. It's how we evolved The child tax breaks are for food and clothing. The marriage tax breaks are for providing them the ideal environment. I did not say in my OP post we should remove child tax breaks, I said we should remove the marriage one. With heterosexuals we may or may not get the ideal environment for children we are paying for. With gay couples, we know we are not. So if they care for the kids, we pay for that. But we get nothing for paying for the "marriage"
Are you arguing single parents should not have the tax breaks for kids that married people do? Really? So your hatred is not just for gays but also for single parents?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.ROFL ^ dumb ass thinks you have to be married to have kids.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.
Except that appears nowhere in the noted post.
People are not just babysitters and maids. The idea for kids is a parent of each sex. It's how we evolved The child tax breaks are for food and clothing. The marriage tax breaks are for providing them the ideal environment. I did not say in my OP post we should remove child tax breaks, I said we should remove the marriage one. With heterosexuals we may or may not get the ideal environment for children we are paying for. With gay couples, we know we are not. So if they care for the kids, we pay for that. But we get nothing for paying for the "marriage"
Kaz is just arguing for discrimination against gays.
Everything else is just window dressing.
Kaz enjoys his marriage bennies- and is happy to have gay couples raising kids pay for his marriage bennies.
Kaz is fine taking money away from homes with kids(if the parents are gay) to give to newly wed 80 year olds - as long as the 80 year olds are not gay.
Like I said- just all window dressing- Kaz has his- and he wants to discriminate against gays- and their children.
NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
Yes or no, pop, gays can have kids. You can't have it both ways.ROFL ^ dumb ass thinks you have to be married to have kids.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.
Except that appears nowhere in the noted post.
Until he proves the impossible, which is to prove that marriage licenses are only issued to fertile couples
No one said that, moron
Oh really? That proves your argument has no merit. You've just proven your argument has no merit.
NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
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.ROFL ^ dumb ass thinks you have to be married to have kids.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.
Except that appears nowhere in the noted post.
People are not just babysitters and maids. The idea for kids is a parent of each sex. It's how we evolved The child tax breaks are for food and clothing. The marriage tax breaks are for providing them the ideal environment. I did not say in my OP post we should remove child tax breaks, I said we should remove the marriage one. With heterosexuals we may or may not get the ideal environment for children we are paying for. With gay couples, we know we are not. So if they care for the kids, we pay for that. But we get nothing for paying for the "marriage"
Single moms get all the tax breaks that are child related.
NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
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
What state denies marriage licenses to couples who can't reproduce?
Name one.
NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
Actually, yours is the dead argument as you've failed miserably to prove married couples get "paid for the babies."It matters to Biology, in which the vast majority of sex has nothing to do with making babies, and was never meant to.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?
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?
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.
And families without children don't get those tax breaks. Including gay couples without children.
So what are you complaining about?
Pop23
Gold Member
Are you arguing single parents should not have the tax breaks for kids that married people do? Really? So your hatred is not just for gays but also for single parents?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.ROFL ^ dumb ass thinks you have to be married to have kids.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.
Except that appears nowhere in the noted post.
People are not just babysitters and maids. The idea for kids is a parent of each sex. It's how we evolved The child tax breaks are for food and clothing. The marriage tax breaks are for providing them the ideal environment. I did not say in my OP post we should remove child tax breaks, I said we should remove the marriage one. With heterosexuals we may or may not get the ideal environment for children we are paying for. With gay couples, we know we are not. So if they care for the kids, we pay for that. But we get nothing for paying for the "marriage"
Stretching?
Pop23
Gold Member
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
What state denies marriage licenses to couples who can't reproduce?
Name one.
Can't? Got a point?
Pop23
Gold Member
Are you arguing single parents should not have the tax breaks for kids that married people do? Really? So your hatred is not just for gays but also for single parents?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.ROFL ^ dumb ass thinks you have to be married to have kids.
Except that appears nowhere in the noted post.
People are not just babysitters and maids. The idea for kids is a parent of each sex. It's how we evolved The child tax breaks are for food and clothing. The marriage tax breaks are for providing them the ideal environment. I did not say in my OP post we should remove child tax breaks, I said we should remove the marriage one. With heterosexuals we may or may not get the ideal environment for children we are paying for. With gay couples, we know we are not. So if they care for the kids, we pay for that. But we get nothing for paying for the "marriage"
Kaz is just arguing for discrimination against gays.
Everything else is just window dressing.
Kaz enjoys his marriage bennies- and is happy to have gay couples raising kids pay for his marriage bennies.
Kaz is fine taking money away from homes with kids(if the parents are gay) to give to newly wed 80 year olds - as long as the 80 year olds are not gay.
Like I said- just all window dressing- Kaz has his- and he wants to discriminate against gays- and their children.
So discrimating against the blind getting drivers licenses is a bad thing?
Go argue that one, K?
Clarifying.Are you arguing single parents should not have the tax breaks for kids that married people do? Really? So your hatred is not just for gays but also for single parents?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.ROFL ^ dumb ass thinks you have to be married to have kids.
Except that appears nowhere in the noted post.
People are not just babysitters and maids. The idea for kids is a parent of each sex. It's how we evolved The child tax breaks are for food and clothing. The marriage tax breaks are for providing them the ideal environment. I did not say in my OP post we should remove child tax breaks, I said we should remove the marriage one. With heterosexuals we may or may not get the ideal environment for children we are paying for. With gay couples, we know we are not. So if they care for the kids, we pay for that. But we get nothing for paying for the "marriage"
Stretching?
Pop23
Gold Member
Why all the deflections then, just a hobby of yours?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.So you don't believe in adoption or in envitro. Not very bright or aware, are you?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.
Which is an obvious deflection.
Thanks.
Says the king of deflection.
Pop23
Gold Member
Clarifying.Are you arguing single parents should not have the tax breaks for kids that married people do? Really? So your hatred is not just for gays but also for single parents?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.Except that appears nowhere in the noted post.
People are not just babysitters and maids. The idea for kids is a parent of each sex. It's how we evolved The child tax breaks are for food and clothing. The marriage tax breaks are for providing them the ideal environment. I did not say in my OP post we should remove child tax breaks, I said we should remove the marriage one. With heterosexuals we may or may not get the ideal environment for children we are paying for. With gay couples, we know we are not. So if they care for the kids, we pay for that. But we get nothing for paying for the "marriage"
Stretching?
Nope, that's a stretch.
PaintMyHouse
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #2,138
If the state can find a compelling reason, that the courts will accept, you can discriminate. The courts have looked at your reasons for denying gays the right to marry each other, and found them to be invalid. So sad, for you that is.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
Pop23
Gold Member
If the state can find a compelling reason, that the courts will accept, you can discriminate. The courts have looked at your reasons for denying gays the right to marry each other, and found them to be invalid. So sad, for you that is.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
So discrimating is not always bad. Good
and the reason is that the blind person has all the ability to drive but one. So arguing that he should be afforded this license is not bizarre, in fact it realistic.
Thanks.
NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
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
What state denies marriage licenses to couples who can't reproduce?
Name one.
Can't? Got a point?
The point is, reproduction capability has no place in the gay marriage debate. Now explain that to kazhomophobe.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 111
- Views
- 694
- Replies
- 1
- Views
- 59
- Replies
- 78
- Views
- 579
- Replies
- 108
- Views
- 1K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 158
- Views
- 765
- Replies
- 871
- Views
- 4K
- Replies
- 88
- Views
- 491
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8508
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 483
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-