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.
Sorry I made you cry, guy, here's a hanky.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.How many time must this be explained to you ... ? Equal protection under the law.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 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
If that's how you need to frame "equal protection," how sad for you.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
These taxes, that you are so concerned with, name them?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?
kaz said:So what about Republicans who supported the Iraq war, should they not have to pay for it?
So answer the question
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...
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...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
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.Until they have the right to marry the person they loveThey already have equal protection under the law. You can post your idiocy 10,000 times, but that won't make it a valid argument.
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
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...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
There is not one gay for whom being gay changes who they can marry
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.Until they have the right to marry the person they loveThey already have equal protection under the law. You can post your idiocy 10,000 times, but that won't make it a valid argument.
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
No dancing there at all. Americans pay for America's wars, or China that is lately.These taxes, that you are so concerned with, name them?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?
kaz said:So what about Republicans who supported the Iraq war, should they not have to pay for it?
So answer the question
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...
You're a terrible dancer. The question is whether Republicans should have to pay for wars they support. My answer is yes, what is yours?
Just like you should pay the progressive taxes you support and not dodge them
Sweetcheeks, I am the grownup here. I, unlike you, can deal with reality, therefore gay people and equality.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.Until they have the right to marry the person they loveThey already have equal protection under the law. You can post your idiocy 10,000 times, but that won't make it a valid argument.
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
Wow, you're a contortionist.
Women have a clear advantage in court for custody when parents split. Affermative action is allowed for women, not men. Women are allowed in locker rooms of male athletes because of discrimination accusations, not vice versa.
There are lots of laws that change based on sex. I really need to fix that loose plank, now it bashed you in the face when you stepped on it. Sorry, guy. Get how it works now? Time to grow up
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.No one would give marriage tax breaks other than the expectation of a family.
The DOI isn't anything, but historical. It has no standing in court, not even a little.Marriage is a fundamental right in the pursuit of happiness.Link to the governments love test.
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
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.Until they have the right to marry the person they loveThey already have equal protection under the law. You can post your idiocy 10,000 times, but that won't make it a valid argument.
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
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.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.
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
So...your in-home culture is Korean...and you live in Korea.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?
Ah...look at the cutesie comment.It means Pop thinks separating gays from the population is the sporting thing to do.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
So...your in-home culture is Korean...and you live in Korea.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?
You're going to have to explain that one to me. Do I need to do jello shots like you first to understand it?
I was responding to the race whoring bitch Seawytch's claim perfect parents are white. Obviously that's not the case or since my ass is white, my kids would be white if I believed that
Can we stick to the points, gay boy? I know you want to talk about feelings. Maybe you can just have a white whine spritzer and snap it out and come back when you can focus on the discussion points.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"
How could the Government sanction Sodomy or sexual perversion. Wasn't Sodomy a crime a few years ago.
This whole gay marriage campaign is absurd.Sexual abnormality should not be legalized by the government.
In many African and third world nations this homosexuality is still a major crime with serious jail time as a penalty.!
Can we stick to the points, gay boy? I know you want to talk about feelings. Maybe you can just have a white whine spritzer and snap it out and come back when you can focus on the discussion points.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"
I've answered this question repeatedly. How do we know ex-ante which of the 90% of heterosexual marriages will result in kids? When you can answer that, get back to me.
We do know that 100% of gay marriages won't.
