Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[Syriusly]

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.

Yeah- you are just yanking your own dick in this thread.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why should taxpayers be forced subsidize anyone or anything??

Because we're a civilized society, or at least we try to be. Apparently not where you come from.

 

[The Rabbi]

Fake Rabbi, note how Kaz starts out with a flat out intentional misstatement of fact, i.e. gay couples are less capable of child rearing, driven by his bigotry, and then morphs into a "financial issue.'

That's simply propaganda and not an honest OP.

The OP was:

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

HE does not say gay couples are less capable of child rearing. That is a misunderstanding.
Are you still sticking with your statement that the OP is a deflection?

 

[The Rabbi]

"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..."

Wrong.

You clearly don't 'get it' at all.

Infertile opposite-sex couples are allowed to marry, and older married opposite-sex couples are not compelled to divorce because they're no longer able to have children.

Marriage is the union of two equal, consenting adult partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state where the state participates as a party to the marriage contract, procreation has nothing whatsoever to do with the merits of the contract or marriage.

Consequently the premise of your thread fails as a straw man fallacy

You dont know what a strawman fallacy is.
Second, the vast majority of heterosexual couples who marry do in fact produce children. That some of them dont is irrelevant. A point I've made dozens of times but still seems to elude the morons here.

What part of gay marriage will prevent them from continuing to do so?

Who said it would?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Yeah- you are just yanking your own dick in this thread.

Time was that was considered a terrible sin.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

And he would be right.
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

More like this:

Q:Is there any reason we should not discriminate against Chinese Americans?

Us: hmmmm why should we discriminate against Chinese?

 

[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.

Non sequitor

Marriage, child tax credits, or SS have nothing to do with evolution. Not following your line of thought.

That is exactly my point.

Gay marriage is a GOVERNMENT recognition and has nothing to do with evolution. All this bogus talk about evolution is a red herring. A non sequitur. All gays are asking for is the same government cash and prizes the rest of us get for being married, and has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. If a gay couple gets Social Security survivor benefits, it affects evolution not at all.

So stop throwing out red herrings and stick to the issue.

 

[G.T.]

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

Neither can priests and nuns. Can we save our species by outlawing the Catholic Church?

Homosexuals can perpetuate the species. Quite clearly

 

[NYcarbineer]

Fake Rabbi, note how Kaz starts out with a flat out intentional misstatement of fact, i.e. gay couples are less capable of child rearing, driven by his bigotry, and then morphs into a "financial issue.'

That's simply propaganda and not an honest OP.

The OP was:

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

HE does not say gay couples are less capable of child rearing. That is a misunderstanding.
Are you still sticking with your statement that the OP is a deflection?

He said this:

"I at least get the concept of straight government marriage. Perpetuation of the species."

 

[g5000]

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

Neither can priests and nuns. Can we save our species by outlawing the Catholic Church?

Just the gay parts of the Church.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Tuck your panties back in your pants, I only say that to nitwits like Syriously and Bodedica when they continually go on ignoring what I said in their liberal religious fervor and they stop processing everything that I say. Here's another thread I started. Note most of the liberals aren't reacting to it, they are used to me doing that.

What is wrong with being gay exactly US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I dont care that youre so sexually confused bro

So you're calling me gay as an insult because you think I insulted gays.

Can't make up your liberal bilch, it's classic

Why is being called gay an insult? Call me gay all you want.

 

[bendog]

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.

Can you think of any other creature on earth that voluntarily saves it's sperm or egg for future progeny?

Can you think of any creature on earth that makes love with protection so as NOT to reproduce?

Bottom line is this. If we were all gay, we would have heterosexual sex to reproduce only...pretty much like all other living creatures.

That would be bisexual wouldn't it?

Well, I'll take your question at face value and not ascribe any possible faux motive.

Every gay or lesbian I've gotten to know has not "always" been exclusively same sex orientation. And, I know one straight happily married male dad who was bisexual with a strong male preference when he was younger. That's why I find those who post innuendos about Obama's supposed male sexual relationships with an older man during his youth.

 

[g5000]

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.

Tuck your panties back in your pants, I only say that to nitwits like Syriously and Bodedica when they continually go on ignoring what I said in their liberal religious fervor and they stop processing everything that I say. Here's another thread I started. Note most of the liberals aren't reacting to it, they are used to me doing that.

What is wrong with being gay exactly US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I dont care that youre so sexually confused bro

So you're calling me gay as an insult because you think I insulted gays.

Can't make up your liberal bilch, it's classic

Why is being called gay an insult? Call me gay all you want.

Bigots think being called "gay" or a "Muslim" are insults. They make up things like, "Obama is a Muslim" as though it were a bad thing to be a Muslim.

They don't get it.

 

[bodecea]

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

Yes.

How so? Will homos eventually just die out?

Is that what has happened? Or do homosexuals come from straights?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

Neither can priests and nuns. Can we save our species by outlawing the Catholic Church?

Homosexuals can perpetuate the species. Quite clearly

It's irrelevant whether they can or not. There is no obligation, legal, moral, or by any measure, for every individual human to reproduce.

That's absurd. And nowhere in the law.

 

[JakeStarkey]

LBT: That's what I was referring to earlier about evolution and how it doesn't reconcile. The Court does not care.

The Rabbi: Instead of reasoned answers he gets the usual spin, deflection, fallacies, and irrelevant responses I've come to expect from the same morons on this site. The OP, being silly, receives what it deserves.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

The species is going to die out if gays are allowed to marry.

How mental is that?

How did you get marriage confused in there? As usual, completely unable to deduce any type of independent thought.

 

[bendog]

Why should taxpayers be forced subsidize anyone or anything??

There it is. Why subsidize buying homes, corporate jets, borrowing money to expand a business .......?

 

[G.T.]

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

Neither can priests and nuns. Can we save our species by outlawing the Catholic Church?

Homosexuals can perpetuate the species. Quite clearly

It's irrelevant whether they can or not. There is no obligation, legal, moral, or by any measure, for every individual human to reproduce.

That's absurd. And nowhere in the law.

I know that.

Im just saying.

Humans are intelligent. We have a grasp on how reproduction works. If there were only gay men and gay women left on this planet, the fact theyre men and women would be all that was needed and we would quite easily perpetuate the species.


Its just another reason that the "perpetuate the species" line of bullshit in the op is a strawman.

 

[g5000]

Child tax credits are wasteful spending. A gratuitous government gift.

The idea that we need child tax credits to support procreation carries with it the implicit premise that people have children for the government gifts.