Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[Pop23]

Damn, that post above was poorly done.

NYcarbineer correctly stated - No state denies marriage licenses to the sterile. TRUE

WorldWatcher correctly stated that the marriage license is denied if the couple is fertile (where 1st cousins are allowed to marry) - True

And My post made no sense afterward, so Seawytch statement was also correct.

So, off with my head.

Don't let be said that I don't know when I'm beat! (but not wrong!)

See ya, I'm outta this joint!

enjoy USMB without the old dude!

 

[Faun]

Damn, that post above was poorly done.

NYcarbineer correctly stated - No state denies marriage licenses to the sterile. TRUE

WorldWatcher correctly stated that the marriage license is denied if the couple is fertile (where 1st cousins are allowed to marry) - True

And My post made no sense afterward, so Seawytch statement was also correct.

So, off with my head.

Don't let be said that I don't know when I'm beat! (but not wrong!)

See ya, I'm outta this joint!

enjoy USMB without the old dude!

Good for you, gramps. Maybe kaz will learn from your example.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

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?

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.

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.

And still the reality is that some two million children are living in same sex homes and 4% of all adoptions are by gay couples.

Anti gay argument fail #143.

No, 2 million have at least one gay parent according to liberal studies. Most of them are faking it. You need to repent, you are doomed to hell. it's probably too late, but at least give salvation a shot. Slut

Oh Kaz...you're so transparent. Is this the new place for you to run when you can't counter the point? You go full on hateful bigot instead of just the little old "gays are icky" bigot you are? Tsk, tsk.

I had no idea the Census was a "liberal study". Interesting POV. Crazy, but interesting.

Again for the cheap and stupid seats...4% of ALL adoptions are by gay parents. That's like 65,000 kids right there.

 

[Seawytch]

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?

So...your in-home culture is Korean...and you live in Korea.

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

Nope..I said that using your logic, "ideal" parents would be rich and white. It's as valid a claim as your "straight parents are ideal".

Nothing I said was race, slut. So how is "white" my logic?

Come on Kazbigot, I know you're not stupid. I know you said nothing about race. You said straight parents are better than gay parents based solely on the fact that they're straight. You HAVE said time and again that straight parents, a mother and a father are "ideal". Are you trying to deny you've made those statements?

 

[kaz]

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.

Right, people move in together and share expenses, so we want them to have another tax break for that. The concept of marriage is for piling tax breaks on people already cutting their expenses. That's what they want.

It's funny how leftists are so much like Christians. It's about faith, and you love nothing more than the chance to show that faith has led you believe fully something otherwise only an idiot would believe.

I guess you can't have two Gods, and yours is government. That's why you hate Christians, they are competition for the sheep you want to join your faith

I don't hate christians. I'm a christian. What I hate is your bigotry.

Yes, and you don't hate Republicans, they are bigots too, you know, you are one.

The thing with leftist Christians is the leftist comes first

 

[kaz]

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.

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?

Kaz is just arguing for discrimination against gays.

Wrong, I'm not arguing for just that

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.

Actually, you support progressive taxes, Sparky

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.

Strawman, I said nothing about eliminating child deductions for gays, just the marriage breaks

Yes- you are arguing exactly that- you are specifically arguing that gay couples should be discriminated against- even gay couples raising children

Strawman. Um...no. I said nothing about discriminating against gays. Not giving someone money for not doing anything for you is not "discriminating" against them. What an idiot.

Your argument is that gay couples should have to pay taxes that you do not have to pay- i.e. that gay couples raising children should pay you and your wife to encourage you to be married.

Your argument comes down to taking away money from families with children- if the parents are gay- and giving it to couples with no children- as long as they are not gay.

I.e.- discrimination based entirely upon sexual orientation.

Actually, I think gay couples, straight couples single gays, single straights, polygamists and narcissists like Skylar should all pay the same rate. It's you who wants discrimination, Sparky. Now you want out of your own trap. You can't lie your way out of the facts.

John Adams: "Facts are stubborn things"

Fact: I want no discrimination, you want more

Sorry, but you lie, and you are exposed for it

 

[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

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

Equal protection for me is being treated equally. Gays have that now

LOL- in a thread where you specifically argue that gay couples should not be treated equally with straight couples.

In a thread where you argue that gay couples should be forced to pay you to be married- while you do not have to pay them for their marriage.

How exactly is that being 'treated equally'?

Strawman, gays are treated exactly like straights. The issue is you don't want them to be. At least start by being honest

 

[kaz]

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

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.

Yes, the state needs to convince the courts not to legislate, that's in the Constitution, I remember that part

The courts don't legislate- that is in the Constitution.

The courts interpret the constitutionality of laws- like they have for marriage laws 3 times in the past.

That's why it's a crime, Sparky. The courts are violating the Constitution by legislating since even as you are aware they have no power to do that. Not liking legislation isn't authority for the courts to overturn it. That is a job for the ... wait for it ... legislature

 

[kaz]

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?

Stretching?

Clarifying.

Why? My OP post was clear on that

Oh? Where did you answer my question in your post about your hatred for single parents?

I don't answer loaded questions unless it's fun. But nowhere did I advocate removing child deductions. My OP post clearly addressed marriage. What you have there is a non-sequitur. The OP post is clear on what it does ... and doesn't ... address.

Here is a three step process that will greatly improve the quality of your life:

1) Grab stick

2) Pull

3) Remove

Wow, it would be a joy for you. And for the rest of the people who have to deal with you

 

[kaz]

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.

Right, perpetuation of the species isn't a legitimate concern for a country. That makes sense, I feel you

Yawn... how will gay marriages cause concern over the perpetuation of the species? You morons just go round and round..

Strawman, I never said that. Typical leftist, you don't ask why we should fund something, that's a given

 

[RKMBrown]

1: Quote by POP23 "Only opposite sex coupling produce population. Without population there is no need for a government, and we question if same sex coupling should get tax benefits when the contribution is zero?" Citation:
Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

2: Quote by POP23 "100% of all children born come from male/female couplings, 0% of all children born come from same sex couplings." Citation:
Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

3: Quote by POP23 "Where the children come from A same sex coupling has never produced a child. One coupling can One coupling cannot." Citation:
Gays Speak Against Gays Adopting, Politics Not Reported.

4: Quote by POP23 "Can't parent until a child is produced. And that always involves a male/female." Citation:
Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

5: Quote by POP23 "Wouldn't 100% of all gay and lesbian couples with children have them outside of wedlock?" Citation:
Can someone tell me when it was that Gays had different drinking fountains?...

6: Quote by POP23 "All that and you fail to realize that same sex couplings which would include same sex siblings cannot produce children." Citation:
Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA?


All of these citations in "gay marriage" threads, every single one of them. Not one of them in a gay sex thread, not one, not a single one of them. Thus the context of EVERY SINGLE STATEMENT YOU MADE was to point out that there is no point to gay marriages since gay couples can't create children.

Definition of COUPLING
1: the act of bringing or coming together : pairing
websters

In the context of gay marriage. The coming together of two people of the same sex in marriage. Which may also include having sex, having children, adopting children, raising families... etc.

And nowhere in that entire tirade can you find where I said gays can't procreate.

I'll be right back with your original quote.

What I said to you pop was... So you admit your argument was baseless from the start? There is no requirement for "coupling" in a marriage. There is no requirement for marriages producing kids. The only requirement going on around here is that gays can't get married.. and that will soon end.

That's not what you sa

So what?

What state marriage law requires fertility to qualify for a marriage license?

Name one.

Several mumicipalities require the lack of the ability

Shall I repeat the question and give you the opportunity to show off your retardation even more?

Shall I repeat the answer, which implies........

Procreation is indeed part of the equation

Is that too deep for your simple mind.

But it was a nice way to try to save RK's ass

Part of what equation ya moron? The issue is about gay marriage not procreation ya dumb ass. If you want to start a thread about gay sex being as productive as you screwing a cherry pie effing go for it. Your admission that procreation and sex are non issues with regard to the gay marriage debate is SUMMARILY NOTED. I would suggest you drop it vs. continuing to get your butt beat.

Still can't come up with the quote

You are dismissed

ROFL yeah cause 6 quotes wasn't just one quote.

 

[RKMBrown]

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?

Stretching?

Clarifying.

Why? My OP post was clear on that

Oh? Where did you answer my question in your post about your hatred for single parents?

I don't answer loaded questions unless it's fun. But nowhere did I advocate removing child deductions. My OP post clearly addressed marriage. What you have there is a non-sequitur. The OP post is clear on what it does ... and doesn't ... address.

Here is a three step process that will greatly improve the quality of your life:

1) Grab stick

2) Pull

3) Remove

Wow, it would be a joy for you. And for the rest of the people who have to deal with you

It's your stick Kaz, not mine. You are the one running around with a stick shoving it up the asses of gay folk and now single folk attacking them for being less than a part of heterosexual married couples. You are the one attacking people for being less than worthy in YOUR eyes.

 

[kaz]

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.

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?

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.

We know that zero percent of infertile heterosexual marriages will bear children from both partners- and we don't care.

Nope. My lead designer who works for me in my business had always been told she and her husband cannot have children. Not sure which one, she didn't say. They were on the verge of adopting when ... you guess it ... she got pregnant. And her first biological grandson was just born last year.

Usually anecdotal stories are meaningless, but in this case, not. Let's check the scoreboard.

Children of infertile heterosexual couples personally known by kaz - 1
Children of gay sex in the history of mankind - 0

Ouch, that's you going down the hard way, all your evidence loses to one anecdotal example. That smarts

We do know that gay marriages can- and do have children the same way that millions of heterosexual marriages do.

But you want to exclude homosexual marriages entirely because they are homosexual- and for no other reason.

So you can get your bennies- and deny those bennies to them.

So that a gay couple raising 8 kids has to pay bennies to 2 80 year olds who get married on a whim in Las Vegas.

I did not advocate gay couple not get child credits, so this is still irrelevant, just like every other time you brought it up

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

Right, people move in together and share expenses, so we want them to have another tax break for that. The concept of marriage is for piling tax breaks on people already cutting their expenses. That's what they want.

It's funny how leftists are so much like Christians. It's about faith, and you love nothing more than the chance to show that faith has led you believe fully something otherwise only an idiot would believe.

I guess you can't have two Gods, and yours is government. That's why you hate Christians, they are competition for the sheep you want to join your faith

I don't hate christians. I'm a christian. What I hate is your bigotry.

Yes, and you don't hate Republicans, they are bigots too, you know, you are one.

The thing with leftist Christians is the leftist comes first

Not all republicans are bigots. Not all Christians are bigots. But you are, clearly, bigoted against gays.

What am I bigoted against? Bigots?

Just as liberty is not the liberty to take rights away from people, like you are doing to gays, bigotry is not the hatred of bigots. See how that works?

 

[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.

Equal protection for me is being treated equally. Gays have that now

LOL- in a thread where you specifically argue that gay couples should not be treated equally with straight couples.

In a thread where you argue that gay couples should be forced to pay you to be married- while you do not have to pay them for their marriage.

How exactly is that being 'treated equally'?

Strawman, gays are treated exactly like straights. The issue is you don't want them to be. At least start by being honest

Repeating your lies doesn't help you. Never has ... never will.

They are not treated the same. For heterosexuals, the government allows them to legally marry the person they love; but not for homosexuals.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

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.

Yes, the state needs to convince the courts not to legislate, that's in the Constitution, I remember that part

The courts don't legislate- that is in the Constitution.

The courts interpret the constitutionality of laws- like they have for marriage laws 3 times in the past.

That's why it's a crime, Sparky. The courts are violating the Constitution by legislating since even as you are aware they have no power to do that. Not liking legislation isn't authority for the courts to overturn it. That is a job for the ... wait for it ... legislature

Cite the statute that criminalizes certain Supreme Court decisions and cite the cases where the statute has been enforced.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

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?

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.

We know that zero percent of infertile heterosexual marriages will bear children from both partners- and we don't care.

Nope. My lead designer who works for me in my business had always been told she and her husband cannot have children. Not sure which one, she didn't say. They were on the verge of adopting when ... you guess it ... she got pregnant. And her first biological grandson was just born last year.

Usually anecdotal stories are meaningless, but in this case, not. Let's check the scoreboard.

Children of infertile heterosexual couples personally known by kaz - 1
Children of gay sex in the history of mankind - 0

Ouch, that's you going down the hard way, all your evidence loses to one anecdotal example. That smarts

We do know that gay marriages can- and do have children the same way that millions of heterosexual marriages do.

But you want to exclude homosexual marriages entirely because they are homosexual- and for no other reason.

So you can get your bennies- and deny those bennies to them.

So that a gay couple raising 8 kids has to pay bennies to 2 80 year olds who get married on a whim in Las Vegas.

I did not advocate gay couple not get child credits, so this is still irrelevant, just like every other time you brought it up

You want gay couples to be denied joint filing, while hetero couples retain it.

That is discrimination.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

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?

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.

We know that zero percent of infertile heterosexual marriages will bear children from both partners- and we don't care.

Nope. My lead designer who works for me in my business had always been told she and her husband cannot have children. Not sure which one, she didn't say. They were on the verge of adopting when ... you guess it ... she got pregnant. And her first biological grandson was just born last year.

Usually anecdotal stories are meaningless, but in this case, not. Let's check the scoreboard.

Children of infertile heterosexual couples personally known by kaz - 1
Children of gay sex in the history of mankind - 0

Ouch, that's you going down the hard way, all your evidence loses to one anecdotal example. That smarts

We do know that gay marriages can- and do have children the same way that millions of heterosexual marriages do.

But you want to exclude homosexual marriages entirely because they are homosexual- and for no other reason.

So you can get your bennies- and deny those bennies to them.

So that a gay couple raising 8 kids has to pay bennies to 2 80 year olds who get married on a whim in Las Vegas.

I did not advocate gay couple not get child credits, so this is still irrelevant, just like every other time you brought it up

Got ya beat Kaz...90 year old grandpa married his 80 year old girlfriend...0 chance of resulting children. He died last year...no kids.

My brother and his wife both got married knowing they were never going to have children. They are both fixed, her a hysterectomy and him a vasectomy. 0 kids will result in their marriage. I am the only child bearer in the family.

You ARE advocating that straight people get the married tax breaks (like you for example) but gay married people like me don't.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Several mumicipalities require the lack of the ability

"mumicipalities" don't set state civil marriage laws.

It's state legislatures that set those laws in place.

>>>>

Did I say state?

No. You were just dancing around trying to avoid admitting that there are no child requirements in any state marriage licensing laws.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

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?

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.

We know that zero percent of infertile heterosexual marriages will bear children from both partners- and we don't care.

Nope. My lead designer who works for me in my business had always been told she and her husband cannot have children. Not sure which one, she didn't say. They were on the verge of adopting when ... you guess it ... she got pregnant. And her first biological grandson was just born last year.

Usually anecdotal stories are meaningless, but in this case, not. Let's check the scoreboard.

Children of infertile heterosexual couples personally known by kaz - 1
Children of gay sex in the history of mankind - 0

Ouch, that's you going down the hard way, all your evidence loses to one anecdotal example. That smarts

We do know that gay marriages can- and do have children the same way that millions of heterosexual marriages do.

But you want to exclude homosexual marriages entirely because they are homosexual- and for no other reason.

So you can get your bennies- and deny those bennies to them.

So that a gay couple raising 8 kids has to pay bennies to 2 80 year olds who get married on a whim in Las Vegas.

I did not advocate gay couple not get child credits, so this is still irrelevant, just like every other time you brought it up

Got ya beat Kaz...90 year old grandpa married his 80 year old girlfriend...0 chance of resulting children. He died last year...no kids.

My brother and his wife both got married knowing they were never going to have children. They are both fixed, her a hysterectomy and him a vasectomy. 0 kids will result in their marriage. I am the only child bearer in the family.

You ARE advocating that straight people get the married tax breaks (like you for example) but gay married people like me don't.

You know we have sort of been trapped into legitimizing these peoples' absurd premise that there is any child requirement for marriage in the first place.