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.
Can you think of any creature on earth that makes love with protection so as NOT to reproduce?You keep forgetting about sentience. A pretty fucking large part of the equation.
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.
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.
Can you think of any other creature on earth that voluntarily saves it's sperm or egg for future progeny?
Youre the one who assumed we need straights in order to perpetuate the species. We dont, pretty clearly.No they wouldnt.If gays were tasked with reproducing in order to save humanity, theyd do it rather easily.If the minority population of gays in any given society were somehow tasked by nature to do all the reproducing for that society,
yes then it would be a problem.
The reality is that no human society has ever needed every member to reproduce in order to prosper, so yes, gays not reproducing is easily reconciled with Evolution.
Yes, but they would need help.
There are gay women. Eggs.
There are gay men. Sperm.
What escapes you?
Nothing. Again, you're stating the obvious.
And he would be right.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
I'm missing something here. What is it being paid for?
He can't say. He got caught again thinking that no one would notice how stupid a thread he'd started.
But he'll blame it on everyone else's reading comprehension.
Finally someone makes the point. Thank you. I disagree with you, but still I thank you for correctly stating the issue. I think govt has a legit interest in making child rearing less hard to do. I realize there's a distinction between a tax break for breeders than taxing everyone for schools, even if they're non-breeders. Perhaps it would be better civics to simply not have the tax break, but instead offer more public services to kids so the parents don't have a direct expense.Human beings do not need government intervention to hump each others brains out and produce children. There is absolutely no need for government to "encourage" procreation. It has always happened, and always will. We've gotten very, very good at it without government "help".
Therefore, government gifts for procreation are entirely unnecessary. They produce no addtional societal benefit whatsoever. They are a cost which come at the expense of others.
Government gifts for procreation are 100 percent wasteful spending. As are government gifts for marriage.
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.
Can you think of any creature on earth that makes love with protection so as NOT to reproduce?You keep forgetting about sentience. A pretty fucking large part of the equation.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.
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.
Can you think of any other creature on earth that voluntarily saves it's sperm or egg for future progeny?
Bottom line is this. If we were all gay, we would have heterosexual sex to reproduce only...pretty much like all other living creatures.
Moron, Kaz's op was a deflection.And he would be right.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
I'm missing something here. What is it being paid for?
He can't say. He got caught again thinking that no one would notice how stupid a thread he'd started.
But he'll blame it on everyone else's reading comprehension.
I am watching this amazed. Kaz asks a basic question. He indicates at the outset he is not an advocate of state sponsored marriage at all. Instead of reasoned answers he gets the usual spin, deflection, fallacies, and irrelevant responses I've come to expect from tjhe same morons on this site.
It would be like this:
Q: Was the US right to go to war against Nazi Germany?
Bendog: We went to war against Japan, right?
RMKBRown: I am opposed to Nazism
Rightwinger: Republicans are the real Nazis. We should declare war on them
Seawytch: My wife fought against the Nazis. With her bare hands.
Votto: War is imperialism pure and simple
G5000: You're an idiot if you support Nazism
Moron, Kaz's op was a deflection.And he would be right.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
I'm missing something here. What is it being paid for?
He can't say. He got caught again thinking that no one would notice how stupid a thread he'd started.
But he'll blame it on everyone else's reading comprehension.
I am watching this amazed. Kaz asks a basic question. He indicates at the outset he is not an advocate of state sponsored marriage at all. Instead of reasoned answers he gets the usual spin, deflection, fallacies, and irrelevant responses I've come to expect from tjhe same morons on this site.
It would be like this:
Q: Was the US right to go to war against Nazi Germany?
Bendog: We went to war against Japan, right?
RMKBRown: I am opposed to Nazism
Rightwinger: Republicans are the real Nazis. We should declare war on them
Seawytch: My wife fought against the Nazis. With her bare hands.
Votto: War is imperialism pure and simple
G5000: You're an idiot if you support Nazism
Human beings do not need government intervention to hump each others brains out and produce children. There is absolutely no need for government to "encourage" procreation. It has always happened, and always will. We've gotten very, very good at it without government "help".
Therefore, government gifts for procreation are entirely unnecessary. They produce no addtional societal benefit whatsoever. They are a cost which come at the expense of others.
Government gifts for procreation are 100 percent wasteful spending. As are government gifts for marriage.
And he would be right.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
I'm missing something here. What is it being paid for?
He can't say. He got caught again thinking that no one would notice how stupid a thread he'd started.
But he'll blame it on everyone else's reading comprehension.
I am watching this amazed. Kaz asks a basic question. He indicates at the outset he is not an advocate of state sponsored marriage at all. Instead of reasoned answers he gets the usual spin, deflection, fallacies, and irrelevant responses I've come to expect from tjhe same morons on this site.
It would be like this:
Q: Was the US right to go to war against Nazi Germany?
Bendog: We went to war against Japan, right?
RMKBRown: I am opposed to Nazism
Rightwinger: Republicans are the real Nazis. We should declare war on them
Seawytch: My wife fought against the Nazis. With her bare hands.
Votto: War is imperialism pure and simple
G5000: You're an idiot if you support Nazism
You are basing your statement on the completely bogus premise that we would not procreate without that wasteful spending.Human beings do not need government intervention to hump each others brains out and produce children. There is absolutely no need for government to "encourage" procreation. It has always happened, and always will. We've gotten very, very good at it without government "help".
Therefore, government gifts for procreation are entirely unnecessary. They produce no addtional societal benefit whatsoever. They are a cost which come at the expense of others.
Government gifts for procreation are 100 percent wasteful spending. As are government gifts for marriage.
True but govt needs us to procreate in order to continue its gravy train.
I wasnt alluding to our ability to save for future use at all.i was merely pointing out that if 100% of us happened to turn gay, we would still pretty easily perpetuate the species. Pretty simple.Youre the one who assumed we need straights in order to perpetuate the species. We dont, pretty clearly.No they wouldnt.If gays were tasked with reproducing in order to save humanity, theyd do it rather easily.
Yes, but they would need help.
There are gay women. Eggs.
There are gay men. Sperm.
What escapes you?
Nothing. Again, you're stating the obvious.
This isn't a straight/not straight issue. You're alluding to our ability to save eggs or sperm for future use. Two men or women by themself, with no egg or sperm, could not continue the species. That's what I was referring to earlier about evolution and how it doesn't reconcile.
Youre the one who assumed we need straights in order to perpetuate the species. We dont, pretty clearly.No they wouldnt.If gays were tasked with reproducing in order to save humanity, theyd do it rather easily.
Yes, but they would need help.
There are gay women. Eggs.
There are gay men. Sperm.
What escapes you?
Nothing. Again, you're stating the obvious.
This isn't a straight/not straight issue. You're alluding to our ability to save eggs or sperm for future use. Two men or women by themself, with no egg or sperm, could not continue the species. That's what I was referring to earlier about evolution and how it doesn't reconcile.
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.
Homosexuals can't perpetuate the species. Does this reconcile with evolution?
