Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[kaz]

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.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"

Do you know what that's from?

Keep going, that document was amended. See the 14th amendment.

Yes, and zero gays had who they could marry change based on being gay, so the 14th was not applicable

 

[kaz]

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

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.

Ayup... which has been an attack on anyone that is not married, be they single or wanting to be married in a same sex relationship. Careful NYC you folks on the left are treading dangerously close to a light bulb moment in understanding the importance of liberty over tyranny

Yes, not giving people money is "an attack" on them. Oh yeah, I forgot you were a "Conservative," LOL

No kaz, the attack is usurping the rights of people you don't like. Rolls eyes.

Which is money, so the point stands, you think not giving someone money is an attack on them. Typical leftist ideology. John Wayne would certainly not agree with that

 

[kaz]

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

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.

Ayup... which has been an attack on anyone that is not married, be they single or wanting to be married in a same sex relationship. Careful NYC you folks on the left are treading dangerously close to a light bulb moment in understanding the importance of liberty over tyranny

Yes, not giving people money is "an attack" on them. Oh yeah, I forgot you were a "Conservative," LOL

Not giving some people money that you give to everyone else- sure.

Wow are you confused. Want flat taxes, you are the one who is giving some people money and not others. Try to keep up

If we excluded sterile couples- but only if they were Jewish sterile couples- no one would deny that was an attack on Jews.

You argue that we should exclude homosexuals from the benefits of marriage- regardless of the number of children that they have- while giving those benefits to any married straight couple- regardless of their capability to have children or their intention to have children.

Yeah- thats an attack
Yeah thats discrimination

You are one confused hombre. If you can somehow tie your points to things I actually said that would help

 

[Faun]

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

Numbers-wise there are far fewer gay couples not having children than straight couples.

Your anti gay argument fails like all of them do.

What do nominal numbers have to do with anything? That's barely better than anecdotal stories. Percentages are the only relevant data

How funny is it watching you dismiss nominal figures after you used them yourself in the past...

kaz using nominal figures...

You should never use nominal figures when comparing numbers over a span of time. But you? You seem to switch between nominal figures and real figures based on which figures you like better.

That link didn't show me using nominal numbers, moron

Holyfuckingshit!

You are seriously one dumb fucking retard. Yup, there is no doubt about it as you prove it repeatedly.

Dumbfuck.....

I linked a post if yours claiming "tax revenues doubled from the start of Reagan's presidency to the end."

... the only way that's true is if you're talking about nominal figures. Real figures come nowhere close to "double."



If you had a functioning brain in your head, I wouldn't have to be explaining this to you for a second time now (and counting, you still don't get it).

Strawman?
Irrelevant?
Off-topic?

What's your latest excuse for being such a dumb shmuck?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Maria del Carmen Bousada de Lara was 66 years 358 days when she gave birth. Records are meant to be broken. And the last thing I want to have government do is think

There are no marriage laws requiring fertility. You discriminate against gays if you deny them marriage on that grounds.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

I think gays "married" or not should pay the same tax rates as everyone else. That's hating them. Gotcha.

Again, three words to improve your life. Grab, pull, remove...

So you're willing to give up all the breaks you get from having children?

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

No, they couldn't marry "the person they love" if they were straight either. Men can't marry men and women can't marry women, it doesn't matter if you are straight or not.

That is a limitation on marriage that only serves the purpose of denying gays the right to marry according to their sexual orientation.

You give a man a right to marry a woman, but you don't give a woman the right to marry a woman. That is gender discrimination.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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...

There is not one gay for whom being gay changes who they can marry

Being gay does change who you want to marry. I am married to a woman. My marriage should be treated exactly like yours. It isn't and that violates the 14th amendment.

If you were straight, your so called marriage to a woman would be treated exactly as it is. Your 14th argument is a fail to all but the leftist indoctrinated like you and RKMBrown who thinks he's a conservative

I'm not straight, I'm gay. I have no interest in marrying a man anymore than Mildred Loving wanted to marry a black man.

I have a civil marriage license issued by my state, just like YOU DO. My license is treated differently thanks to the unconstitutional DOMA...which will be struck down in a few weeks.

Being black changed who you could marry for every black. Being gay changes who you can marry for zero gays. Yeah, that's the same, Rosa Parks

Everyone could marry someone of the same race when anti-miscegenation laws were in place. Based on your thinking,

blacks and whites had the same rights.

 

[Faun]

The point is, reproduction capability has no place in the gay marriage debate. Now explain that to kazhomophobe.

Gays that marry same sex partners can't reproduce. I thought you knew that?

But as PMH just pointed out, often when one demographic group can't do what another can, denying a license is just common sense.

Then how do single mothers reproduce? Makes no sense. If what you are saying is true, then single mothers can't get pregnant can they?

Single mothers get tax breaks for kids, they do not get marriage tax breaks. You have zero point

Married couples get that same tax break for kids. The marriage tax benefit is not about procreation. I don't care how stupid you are.

Yes, I love the bit where if I believe you are serious then I think you are 10 times as stupid than if I think you are a liar. You believe people think the concept of marriage is that people sharing costs and cutting expenses already need more money. It has nothing to do with their going on and having kids. No one thinks of procreation of the species with marriage. You actually want people to think that's what you believe.

You obviously aren't bouncing your stupid statements off people you know. But then you are lying, so why bother?

Oh, look ... kaz is kazzing again. That's where he attributes a position to me I never took and then beats it up because his argument possesses no merit against what I actually stated.

Here it is again.... straight folks can legally marry the person they love. Where same-sex marriage in not legally permitted, gay folks cannot legally marry the person they love.

You know, what dumbfucks call being 'treated the same.'

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"

Do you know what that's from?

It has nothing to do with what I asked you.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Gays that marry same sex partners can't reproduce. I thought you knew that?

But as PMH just pointed out, often when one demographic group can't do what another can, denying a license is just common sense.

Then how do single mothers reproduce? Makes no sense. If what you are saying is true, then single mothers can't get pregnant can they?

Single mothers get tax breaks for kids, they do not get marriage tax breaks. You have zero point

Married couples get that same tax break for kids. The marriage tax benefit is not about procreation. I don't care how stupid you are.

Yes, I love the bit where if I believe you are serious then I think you are 10 times as stupid than if I think you are a liar. You believe people think the concept of marriage is that people sharing costs and cutting expenses already need more money. It has nothing to do with their going on and having kids. No one thinks of procreation of the species with marriage. You actually want people to think that's what you believe.

You obviously aren't bouncing your stupid statements off people you know. But then you are lying, so why bother?

Oh, look ... kaz is kazzing again. That's where he attributes a position to me I never took and then bears it up because his argument possesses no merit against what I actually stated.

Here it is again.... straight folks can legally marry the person they love. Where same-sex marriage in not legally permitted, gay folks cannot legally marry the person they love.

You know, what dumbfucks call being 'treated the same.'

I wonder if he'd support a state legalizing ONLY same sex marriage. I wonder if he thinks that's constitutional.

(lol, he'll lie and say yes)

 

[Seawytch]

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...

There is not one gay for whom being gay changes who they can marry

Being gay does change who you want to marry. I am married to a woman. My marriage should be treated exactly like yours. It isn't and that violates the 14th amendment.

If you were straight, your so called marriage to a woman would be treated exactly as it is. Your 14th argument is a fail to all but the leftist indoctrinated like you and RKMBrown who thinks he's a conservative

I'm not straight, I'm gay. I have no interest in marrying a man anymore than Mildred Loving wanted to marry a black man.

I have a civil marriage license issued by my state, just like YOU DO. My license is treated differently thanks to the unconstitutional DOMA...which will be struck down in a few weeks.

Being black changed who you could marry for every black. Being gay changes who you can marry for zero gays. Yeah, that's the same, Rosa Parks

That isn't a response. You have a civil marriage license issued by a U.S. state. It's valid in all 50 states. My civil marriage license issued by a U.S. state is not. Even an anti gay bigot like you can see that's unconstitutional.

 

[Faun]

You still can't understand when I was saying Carter handed Reagan an economy that was not in recession, I was not denying Volker handed Reagan a recession??

Let's go to the video tape...

Again ... Obama inherited an economy in recession ... Reagan did not

I point out how Reagan was handed an economy which wasn't in recession (which it wasn"t)

I said Reagan didn't inherit a recession because he didn't

Once again your lame lies show the idiot that you are. None of those quotes said Reagan didn't get a recession from Carter, they say he didn't inherit a recession. You never get tired of looking stupid, do you?

Holyfuckingshit!

Who do you think Reagan inherited the economy from if not Carter? King George III??



You're a fucking rightard. Don't ever forget that.

 

[Faun]

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.

No, they couldn't marry "the person they love" if they were straight either. Men can't marry men and women can't marry women, it doesn't matter if you are straight or not. Men can marry women, it doesn't matter if you are straight or not. That is the job of the courts. The rest is for the legislature.

And still you can't name a law that says "who you want" or any other variable that changes the law. Should I be able to fish in hunting season since I eat fish but I don't eat other meat? That's not suppose, I am vegetarian except I eat fish and seafood

Read it again ... this time, absorb it for clarity ...

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967): “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”​

A gay person whose only marital option is someone he's not in love with because they're not the right gender is denying that gay person's vital personal rights, essential to the inalienable right to pursue happiness.

 

[RKMBrown]

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?

You calling someone retarded is like Jerry Falwell calling someone a religious nut

You calling Jerry Falwell a religious nut... priceless.

I do, why you think he's not?

Where did I say he's not? Try again.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

Saying I hate single people shows where the stick is firmly entrenched.

And that doesn't even include that I don't think singles should pay higher rates than married people. But I hate them. Do you read what you post ever? Maybe you should try sometime, it could be eye opening.

BTW, what's with the John Wayne logo? You realize he's a conservative, don't you?

Where did I say you hate single people? I asked you if you hated them. You do know the difference between a question and a statement right?

Google "loaded question"

John Wayne? It's not all about politics Kaz. I'm a fan of the on screen characters that John Wayne portrayed. I used to have my own photo up... but then I saw some creepy stuff going on around here so I pulled it.

OK, thought it might bother you having a conservative on your avatar on a political site

Why do you think I would hand you an unloaded question? BTW you loaded that question all I did was pull the trigger.

No, my avatar does not bother me.

 

[Syriusly]

Cool then you admit child tax breaks have nothing to do with marriage. Maybe you want to start your argument over this time focusing on marriage tax breaks, instead of child tax breaks. Child tax breaks are for the kids and their environment. Marriage tax breaks do not include anything for kids or any requirement for having kids. Marriage tax breaks are for "being married." Which of course requires a marriage license.

It really annoys me that I agree with you. Just sayin'.

Sorry Faun. Don't worry, we'll be at odds on the next subject. Well that is unless the democrats start getting consistent wrt. their views on liberty. I'll be on your side every time you side with liberty.

Yes, because liberty is getting other people's money of course

Which you are fine with getting- but don't want other people to get.

If they are gay.

They can get it when marriage leads to procreation. For me it did, twice.
t

No- couples get the marriage exemption- regardless of procreation.

You want to deny the 'marriage bennies' that you get- only to homosexual couples. While they pay for your bennies.

You think a pair of 80 year old newly weds are eligible for 'marriage bennies' but not a lesbian couple with 5 kids.

Like I said- you are fine with getting yours- but don't want other people to get it.

If they are gay.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"

Do you know what that's from?

Keep going, that document was amended. See the 14th amendment.

Yes, and zero gays had who they could marry change based on being gay, so the 14th was not applicable

But the case before the Supreme Court isn't about 'gay'- is it?

• Does the Constitution require all states to offer marriage licenses to same-sex couples?

• If not, does the Constitution require states to recognize the marriage rights of same-sex couples who are already married?

And yes- marriage laws absolutely do change who someone can marry based upon gender- just as Loving did based upon race.

 

[kaz]

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

Numbers-wise there are far fewer gay couples not having children than straight couples.

Your anti gay argument fails like all of them do.

What do nominal numbers have to do with anything? That's barely better than anecdotal stories. Percentages are the only relevant data

How funny is it watching you dismiss nominal figures after you used them yourself in the past...

kaz using nominal figures...

You should never use nominal figures when comparing numbers over a span of time. But you? You seem to switch between nominal figures and real figures based on which figures you like better.

That link didn't show me using nominal numbers, moron

Holyfuckingshit!

You are seriously one dumb fucking retard. Yup, there is no doubt about it as you prove it repeatedly.

Dumbfuck.....

I linked a post if yours claiming "tax revenues doubled from the start of Reagan's presidency to the end."

... the only way that's true is if you're talking about nominal figures. Real figures come nowhere close to "double."



If you had a functioning brain in your head, I wouldn't have to be explaining this to you for a second time now (and counting, you still don't get it).

Strawman?
Irrelevant?
Off-topic?

What's your latest excuse for being such a dumb shmuck?

Yes, of course, I should have read the entire thread you linked to and figured out which post you were referring to, vagina

 

[kaz]

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.

Maria del Carmen Bousada de Lara was 66 years 358 days when she gave birth. Records are meant to be broken. And the last thing I want to have government do is think

There are no marriage laws requiring fertility. You discriminate against gays if you deny them marriage on that grounds.

OK, I'll answer your questions one more time. After that when you ask me again, I'm just going to call you stupid

You are stupid