Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[Seawytch]

Homosexuals can't perpetuate the species. Does this reconcile with evolution?

Yes.

How so? Will homos eventually just die out?

No.

You realize you're typing on a machine capable of giving you answers to questions, right?

 

[kaz]

More of Kaz masturbating in public about gay sex.

I want it stopped as the deviant behavior that it is. Gay is a disease, we need to do research and solve it. And in the mean time, lock them up

So you are an anti freedom sick fuck.

Next time, have the balls to put these sentiments directly into your op pussy, so tht instead of destroying your faulty logic, all that really needs to be done is mock the fuck out of your neanderthal baby brain.

Ironic... the guy pretending to be a libertarian is an authoritarian. Sort of like RW and fakeyjakey pretending to be conservatives.

I'm yanking the chains of the left, moron. You are seriously not a bright guy, you grasp nothing. And my OP post didn't say that, it said heterosexual marriage is the "premise" of government marriage. I oppose all government marriage. Then I measure the left by their own standard, they bring up not their money all the time for things they oppose as if that is a hammer, while suddenly it's not a standard for things they want.

How do you not see that? You really are a dumb ass

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Homosexuals can't perpetuate the species. Does this reconcile with evolution?

Yes.

How so? Will homos eventually just die out?

By definition, virtually all homosexuals are produced from a union of heterosexuals, so in order for homosexuals to 'die out'

heterosexual reproduction would have to 'die out' and as a consequence humans would die out.

Why would a hetero produce an offspring that couldn't continue the species?

 

[Seawytch]

Homosexuals can't perpetuate the species. Does this reconcile with evolution?

Yes.

How so? Will homos eventually just die out?

By definition, virtually all homosexuals are produced from a union of heterosexuals, so in order for homosexuals to 'die out'

heterosexual reproduction would have to 'die out' and as a consequence humans would die out.

Why would a hetero produce an offspring that couldn't continue the species?

Ask them. All the gays I know have straight parents. All the gays I know have straight kids. Weird huh?

 

[kaz]

Homosexuals can't perpetuate the species. Does this reconcile with evolution?

Yes.

How so? Will homos eventually just die out?

No.

You realize you're typing on a machine capable of giving you answers to questions, right?

Time out, to be serious for a second. I have a question.

Have you considered the possibility that actually coming out could dramatically reduce gay populations? If gay is in genetics, in the past gays sucked it up and got married and procreated. Now if gays dramatically reduce their own biological offspring, couldn't that possibly actually dramatically reduce the rate at gays reproduce?

I am not arguing that, again, it's a question. I believe gay is not a choice. but other than that, I have no idea what the root cause it. So that may or may not be true. But have you ever considered it a possibility?

 

[bendog]

Homosexuals can't perpetuate the species. Does this reconcile with evolution?

Yes.

How so? Will homos eventually just die out?

No.

You realize you're typing on a machine capable of giving you answers to questions, right?

I'm guessing he's being intentionally obtuse. Now Kaz .... he's simply obtuse. LOL

 

[kaz]

Homosexuals can't perpetuate the species. Does this reconcile with evolution?

Yes.

How so? Will homos eventually just die out?

By definition, virtually all homosexuals are produced from a union of heterosexuals, so in order for homosexuals to 'die out'

heterosexual reproduction would have to 'die out' and as a consequence humans would die out.

Why would a hetero produce an offspring that couldn't continue the species?

Ask them. All the gays I know have straight parents. All the gays I know have straight kids. Weird huh?

Valid point, but genetics isn't just parents. Gays are 2.2% of the population. That means it wouldn't be like hair color where there are flat out dominant and recessive genes. It could only increase the risk of being gay. Also, there are generation skipping genes as well

 

[rdean]

I at least get the concept of straight government marriage. Perpetuation of the species. It is the best situation for kids to have a traditional family with a mother and father because:

1) Men and women have different personalities and it is ideal for kids to have a parental relationship with one of each. Having two of the same sex is like having two left shoes or two right shoes. Neither a left shoe nor right shoes is more important than the other, you need one of each. They are different.

2) Kids are best served with a stay at home parent, generally a mother for many reasons for nurturing, caring and helping them stay out of trouble unattended

So for a mother to stay home, it's expensive. Taxpayers as part of the species benefit from the advancement of the species. And frankly that leads even financially to better taxpayers on average in the future.

If gays want to mate and pool resources, that's fine. But why should taxpayers pay for that? Government revenue is reduced, but why? What do we get out of it? Why should we have to fund it? What benefit is it to society that we should be paying for it?

The question: This is a financial question, not a moral one. How financially do the rest of us benefit that government should be charging us higher taxes to make up for lower taxes for people to have gay sex who do not perpetuate the species? Why do we gain for that we should pay for it? That is the question

Smart people understand gays are forced to support ignorant Republicans who want those gays dead:

Same-sex families pay thousands of dollars more in taxes - Dec. 26 2011

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Same-sex spouses are paying as much as $6,000 a year in extra taxes because the federal government doesn't recognize gay marriage, according to an analysis conducted for CNNMoney by tax specialists.

While marriage provides tax benefits for many heterosexual couples, same-sex families don't enjoy the same perks because they are not allowed to file their federal returns jointly.

Google

If I were a smart Republican, I would just shut my mouth and enjoy the revenue.

 

[Seawytch]

Homosexuals can't perpetuate the species. Does this reconcile with evolution?

Yes.

How so? Will homos eventually just die out?

No.

You realize you're typing on a machine capable of giving you answers to questions, right?

Time out, to be serious for a second. I have a question.

Have you considered the possibility that actually coming out could dramatically reduce gay populations? If gay is in genetics, in the past gays sucked it up and got married and procreated. Now if gays dramatically reduce their own biological offspring, couldn't that possibly actually dramatically reduce the rate at gays reproduce?

I am not arguing that, again, it's a question. I believe gay is not a choice. but other than that, I have no idea what the root cause it. So that may or may not be true. But have you ever considered it a possibility?

No more than I've considered the possibility that I'll find the pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.

My parents are straight and still married to each other. My wife's parents are straight and still married to each other.

Straights keep producing gay children.

 

[g5000]

Homosexuals can't perpetuate the species. Does this reconcile with evolution?

Non sequitur.

Does monogamous marriage reconcile with evolution?

Nope.

Do child tax credits reconcile with evolution?

Nope.

Do Social Security survivor's benefits reconcile with evolution?

Nope.

 

[kaz]

Homosexuals can't perpetuate the species. Does this reconcile with evolution?

Yes.

How so? Will homos eventually just die out?

No.

You realize you're typing on a machine capable of giving you answers to questions, right?

Time out, to be serious for a second. I have a question.

Have you considered the possibility that actually coming out could dramatically reduce gay populations? If gay is in genetics, in the past gays sucked it up and got married and procreated. Now if gays dramatically reduce their own biological offspring, couldn't that possibly actually dramatically reduce the rate at gays reproduce?

I am not arguing that, again, it's a question. I believe gay is not a choice. but other than that, I have no idea what the root cause it. So that may or may not be true. But have you ever considered it a possibility?

No more than I've considered the possibility that I'll find the pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.

My parents are straight and still married to each other. My wife's parents are straight and still married to each other.

Straights keep producing gay children.

Read my next post on the subject where I address that

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Homosexuals can't perpetuate the species. Does this reconcile with evolution?

Yes.

How so? Will homos eventually just die out?

No.

You realize you're typing on a machine capable of giving you answers to questions, right?

Yes, but how is that relevant to perpetuation of the species. I'm able to obtain endless amounts of information at other's expense. I didn't work for that information so discipline can and is easily thrown out as everyone thinks they know everything.

 

[kaz]

I at least get the concept of straight government marriage. Perpetuation of the species. It is the best situation for kids to have a traditional family with a mother and father because:

1) Men and women have different personalities and it is ideal for kids to have a parental relationship with one of each. Having two of the same sex is like having two left shoes or two right shoes. Neither a left shoe nor right shoes is more important than the other, you need one of each. They are different.

2) Kids are best served with a stay at home parent, generally a mother for many reasons for nurturing, caring and helping them stay out of trouble unattended

So for a mother to stay home, it's expensive. Taxpayers as part of the species benefit from the advancement of the species. And frankly that leads even financially to better taxpayers on average in the future.

If gays want to mate and pool resources, that's fine. But why should taxpayers pay for that? Government revenue is reduced, but why? What do we get out of it? Why should we have to fund it? What benefit is it to society that we should be paying for it?

The question: This is a financial question, not a moral one. How financially do the rest of us benefit that government should be charging us higher taxes to make up for lower taxes for people to have gay sex who do not perpetuate the species? Why do we gain for that we should pay for it? That is the question

Smart people understand gays are forced to support ignorant Republicans who want those gays dead:

Same-sex families pay thousands of dollars more in taxes - Dec. 26 2011

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Same-sex spouses are paying as much as $6,000 a year in extra taxes because the federal government doesn't recognize gay marriage, according to an analysis conducted for CNNMoney by tax specialists.

While marriage provides tax benefits for many heterosexual couples, same-sex families don't enjoy the same perks because they are not allowed to file their federal returns jointly.

Google

If I were a smart Republican, I would just shut my mouth and enjoy the revenue.

You have no idea what you would do if you were smart, you'd have to be smart to know.

And no, we should not kill gays. We want them to repent, they can't do that if they are dead. Buy a clue

 

[kaz]

Homosexuals can't perpetuate the species. Does this reconcile with evolution?

Yes.

How so? Will homos eventually just die out?

No.

You realize you're typing on a machine capable of giving you answers to questions, right?

I'm guessing he's being intentionally obtuse. Now Kaz .... he's simply obtuse. LOL

I don't relate well to people with small minds

 

[rightwinger]

I at least get the concept of straight government marriage. Perpetuation of the species. It is the best situation for kids to have a traditional family with a mother and father because:

1) Men and women have different personalities and it is ideal for kids to have a parental relationship with one of each. Having two of the same sex is like having two left shoes or two right shoes. Neither a left shoe nor right shoes is more important than the other, you need one of each. They are different.

2) Kids are best served with a stay at home parent, generally a mother for many reasons for nurturing, caring and helping them stay out of trouble unattended

So for a mother to stay home, it's expensive. Taxpayers as part of the species benefit from the advancement of the species. And frankly that leads even financially to better taxpayers on average in the future.

If gays want to mate and pool resources, that's fine. But why should taxpayers pay for that? Government revenue is reduced, but why? What do we get out of it? Why should we have to fund it? What benefit is it to society that we should be paying for it?

The question: This is a financial question, not a moral one. How financially do the rest of us benefit that government should be charging us higher taxes to make up for lower taxes for people to have gay sex who do not perpetuate the species? Why do we gain for that we should pay for it? That is the question

People are allowed to form the families they choose

What business is it of yours?

Non sequitur

Strawman

 

[bodecea]

I at least get the concept of straight government marriage. Perpetuation of the species. It is the best situation for kids to have a traditional family with a mother and father because:

1) Men and women have different personalities and it is ideal for kids to have a parental relationship with one of each. Having two of the same sex is like having two left shoes or two right shoes. Neither a left shoe nor right shoes is more important than the other, you need one of each. They are different.

2) Kids are best served with a stay at home parent, generally a mother for many reasons for nurturing, caring and helping them stay out of trouble unattended

So for a mother to stay home, it's expensive. Taxpayers as part of the species benefit from the advancement of the species. And frankly that leads even financially to better taxpayers on average in the future.

If gays want to mate and pool resources, that's fine. But why should taxpayers pay for that? Government revenue is reduced, but why? What do we get out of it? Why should we have to fund it? What benefit is it to society that we should be paying for it?

The question: This is a financial question, not a moral one. How financially do the rest of us benefit that government should be charging us higher taxes to make up for lower taxes for people to have gay sex who do not perpetuate the species? Why do we gain for that we should pay for it? That is the question

First of all you are mixing apples and oranges- which doesn't surprise me. You talk about gays and sex- but not straights and sex. So is your thread about sex- or marriage?

Secondly- based upon purely a financial question- not the moral one- then you are in agreement then that marriage benefits should only go to couples who have children and live together?

But you want to exclude homosexual couples- because their children don't deserve the benefits of the state?

This is the problem with the anti-homosexual agenda. You have issues with consistency.

If we looked at this purely from your pure financial point of view- we would not allow any such benefits to any couple who does not have children- and then we would provide that financial benefit to any couple who does have children.

But you just want to give the financial benefits to straight couples.

Because you approve of how they have sex.

^That.

God hates gays more than murderers, it's an abomination to humanity. At least murderers only kill one person. Gays not only do not procreate but they poison the rest of society

LOL.....Kaz trolling again.

You know gay is a disease, right? The CDC says so

So much for your claim that this is a "financial thread".

 

[G.T.]

Homosexuals can't perpetuate the species. Does this reconcile with evolution?

Yes.

How so? Will homos eventually just die out?

No.

You realize you're typing on a machine capable of giving you answers to questions, right?

I'm guessing he's being intentionally obtuse. Now Kaz .... he's simply obtuse. LOL

I don't relate well to people with small minds

Self loather, eh?

 

[bodecea]

Totally missing the point.
What is the benefit to society of gay marriage?

True, but more specifically is what is the financial benefit. If we are funding something with $$$, we should have a $$$ reason for doing it

There is no financially sane reason for giving government gifts to people who are going to marry, mate, and/or have children regardless of government intervention in their lives.

None.

It's a gimme gimme gimme boondoggle. Nothing more.

I keep having to remind the left, its not the government's money its the people's money and if the people have decided to encourage traditional marriage between men and women, to encourage the traditional family using a bit of the peoples money then so be it its their money.

And gays and gay couples are of the people too. Or don't you think so?

Gays can feel free to lobby their representatives in congress to pass bills favorable to gays.

Well, I must say, I'm surprised that you haven't noticed us doing that (and being quite successful at it too) over the last few decades. And when this June rolls around..................

 

[bendog]

Kaz, don't blame me for you're starting a I don't like gay marriage thread and, either intentionally or just stupidly, posing it as a govt finance issue.

 

[G.T.]

Homosexuals can't perpetuate the species. Does this reconcile with evolution?

Yes.

How so? Will homos eventually just die out?

No.

You realize you're typing on a machine capable of giving you answers to questions, right?

Yes, but how is that relevant to perpetuation of the species. I'm able to obtain endless amounts of information at other's expense. I didn't work for that information so discipline can and is easily thrown out as everyone thinks they know everything.

You keep forgetting about sentience. A pretty fucking large part of the equation.

We need literally zero straight people, at this point, to perpetuate the species.

Have you ever heard of milking a bull, by chance? His prostate. Not actual milk.

One would have to cease all scientific knowledge, want humanity to die, and or run out of men or women altogether.........at this point in order to stop perpetuating the species.