Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

I'm beginning to suspect that criminalizing homosexuality all together and forcing them through therapy is the only reasonable course of action due to homosexual activist insanity escalating this far out of hand as their sick mentalities are being thrust upon innocent little children let alone the rest of society..

Freedom To Be Heterosexual Has Been Taken Away By Homosexual Activists

(I also notice that the Ontario Parliament is currently forcing things through legislation no matter what citizens want. Need you be reminded that if it was not for "Mother" and "Father" none of us would even exist!)

Homosexual Activists are Not Only Factually Proven To Be Liars Deceivers And Discriminators But They Are Factually Proven As Cowards As Well Because They Can't Handle A Level Playing Field

Of course I scare homosexual activists because I share facts on the foundations of primary global issues I address which reveal beyond any shadow of doubt homosexual activists for the compulsive obsessive liars deceivers and discriminators that they prove to be on the foundation of their "every issue to do with their bias agenda" that I address. Because I share facts on the foundations of primary global issues which expose homosexual activists for the liars deceivers and discriminators that they prove to be, and homosexual activists are not able to contest those very facts with so much as a shred of validity, of course they are scared of being revealed for what they prove to be beyond the lies, deceptions and discrimination that they force on the public through a bias corrupted main stream joke / main stream media. These bias homosexual activists have had me banned off of hundreds of web sites with every lie, deception and form of discrimination that they could possibly fathom to try and hide the very facts I share from the public so that they can continue making a mockery of society while treating the public like a bunch of idiots. They label any activist out there doing their job by raising awareness that opposes them as a spammer or a troll to have them banned off of web sites / political and news discussion forums meanwhile these homosexual activists spam / troll their lies and deceptions not only all over the internet but through the corrupted bias main stream media as well. Homosexual activists can't handle a level playing field because all they have are lies deceptions and discrimination now being revealed and it is my pleasure and time is coming for these fools to pay the piper globally and permanently. I understand full well why Uganda takes such extreme measures because of what they see by watching a bunch of homosexual activist lies deceptions and discrimination insanity infect other countries into such madness such as the countries right here in North America. I do not advocate violence but I do understand why they take such measures. I play a key role in contacting tens of thousands of almost 200 countries globally to end such homosexual activist insanity permanently and globally. There will be no where to run and no where to hide. And all of this talk that they attempt in trying to make anything else the issue such as "there are more important things going on in the world so why do you care about what homosexuals do" speech that they attempt upon you, I say right back at them: You mean like the more important things going on for the last half a century while homosexual activists have been making a mockery of everything with a bunch of lies, deceptions and discrimination anyway?!!

After the last half of a century of homosexual activists ramming their sexual orientation lies and deceptions upon society to the point of corrupting legislation etc. with lies and deceptions, now that they have corrupted legislation with lies and deceptions they are now banning the public from discussing sexual orientation online to prevent their lies and deceptions from being exploited. Think I am lying? Well you go right ahead and join a political or news discussion forum in the USA, CVanada and United Kingdom and you will find as a part of the agreement to join that forum or message born is that you are not allowed to discuss sexual orientation. Think I am kidding, go right ahead and see for yourself.

OK moving along ...

Fact: Homosexual activists go on with the obvious lie of how they advocate freedom of choice while they are quite obviously advocating robbing heterosexuals of the right to be heterosexual by encouraging homosexuals to refuse to accept themselves for what they are which leads to homosexuals robbing heterosexuals of the right to be heterosexual with these homosexual deceptions and proof of this is, homosexual activists perpetuating such homosexual deceptions such as categorizing homosexuals as the Tranny, Transsexual and transgender for example. (types of homosexuals who refuse to accept themselves for what they are that for now get away with pretending to be the opposite sex which leads to unsuspecting heterosexual being robbed of the right to be heterosexual. If you are a heterosexual and you get deceived, homosexual activists are making it so that you have no choice in the matter while they are calling this advocating freedom of choice and any heterosexuals that claims otherwise with validity through demonstrating such facts as being heterosexual doesn't include having sex with those born with the same sex genital that the heterosexual them self is born with, homosexual activists thrust such lies upon them as hater bigot and homophobe)

Fact: Being heterosexual describes specifically a person who has sex with those born with the opposite sex genital they the heterosexual them self are born with.

Fact: Being homosexual specifically describes a person who has sex with those born with the same sex genital that the homosexual them self is born with.

Fact: Being Bi sexual describes a person that has sex with those born with the same sex genital and with the opposite sex genital that the bi sexual them self is born with.

They are attempting to phase out bi sexual as relevant by claiming that a heterosexual person who has sex with a homosexual (pretending to be the opposite sex that they are born such as tranny, transsexual, transvestite) is heterosexuality. Well I got news for you in the form of a blow your mind video that exploits these homosexual activists for the liars deceivers and discriminators that they prove to be on the foundation of this primary issue.

Warning, the following video contains some descriptive choice of words that some of you may not be use too. But since homosexuals and homosexual activists get away with such lies as referring to me as well other heterosexuals as a hater, a bigot and a homophobe this video only exemplifies justice because if you are going to label people with such lies, then you had better be willing to accept being labelled yourself only when I do it as you will see, I am being genuine as I back on claims on the foundation of primary global issues I address with fact.



Marriage:

Fact: If it were up to homosexual unions to sustain the human race, we would have died off thousands of years ago for weakly being a race of sexually defective. Thanks to heterosexual unions we even exist which is the factual evidence that proves homosexual unions do not equal heterosexual unions and that thousands of years of only heterosexual unions being honoured with marriage proves that marriage was never about honouring that if it were up to homosexual unions to sustain the human race, we would have died off thousands of years ago for weakly being a race of sexually defective. Thousands of years Homosexual activists are calling marriage an equality issue when homosexual unions do not even equal heterosexual unions to begin with quite obviously.

I know many of you are aware of this as I myself was made aware by the media as it happened over the years and each and every time homosexual activists failed, they attempted a new lies and deceptions all the while evading the fact that thousands of years prove that marriage is about honouring heterosexual unions. (hence the insane homosexual activist obsessive compulsive lying deceiving mentality) Not one of them ever will contest this fact with so much as a shred of validity as not one of them ever did. All they do is attempt to make their delusions the issue such as:

They attempted to make the issue about some people in society feeling uncomfortable about different human racial variations getting married. Yet even different variations of the human race getting married was also always in honour of the unity of male and female!!! They even deceptively tried to make marriage to be about being with who you love. They again ignored the fact that love may have been present in many marriages but marriage itself was always between heterosexual unions of which beside that primary fact to do with this issue, not every heterosexual couple got married out of love and the USA Supreme Court themselves even acknowledges this fact and I'll get to that just below!!! They also tried to make the issue about heterosexual couples who are not able to birth children and can still get married. That was when they were deceptively trying to make the issue of marriage into "marriage isn't about procreation." What they avoided, I find quite obvious, is the fact that heterosexual couples that can not have children still doesn't disrespect that marriage was created for and in honour of heterosexual unions!!! Marriage wouldn't even exist now if it were not for heterosexual unions. None of us would even exist now if it were not for heterosexual unions which quite obviously makes heterosexual unions, well above all other unions, worth honouring. If it were up to homosexuality to sustain the human population, we quite obviously would have died off thousands of years ago for weakly being a race of sexually defective and where is the honour in that?

Because it was brought to homosexual activists attention that marriage isn't about honouring that if it were up to homosexuals to sustain the human race, we would have died off thousands of years ago for weakly being a race of sexually defective thus exemplifying that marriage is being disrespected by these activists attempting to make a complete mockery of it, they then attempted to claim that divorce disrespects marriage in attempt to make their delusions the issue once again. Yet the fact remains that divorce certainly doesn't disrespect the fact that marriage was created for and in honour of heterosexual unions, but homosexual activists attempt every lie and deception in attempt to make their delusions the issue.

Homosexual activists even have even become scholars in recent past then attempted to claim that every gay relationship they could find recorded throughout history was a marriage. I was in two relationships myself but was never married but if homosexual activists thought it would help their lies and deceptions they would call each of my relationships a marriage because they try and make every lie and deception that they can possibly fathom appear relevant in attempt to try and make their delusions the issue! Back in the Days of the Roman Empire for example homosexuals were beheaded for attempting to make a mockery of marriage but homosexual activists attempt to claim such short lived mockeries as actual marriages.

Homosexual activists have even attempted to make ghost marriages the issue of which ghost marriages were about honouring heterosexual unions of couples after they passed away because of such things in some cultures where the second born could not marry before the first born of a family. So if the first born never married, the family would have to wait until the next sibling died to have a ghost marriage!

The USA Supreme Courts lame excuse for supporting a bunch of filthy homosexual activist lies and deceptions:
The Court notes, marriage was once viewed as an arrangement in which women were treated as the property of their husbands and subordinate to their will. As the Court observes, this came to be viewed as grossly unjust and so the institution of marriage evolved to rid itself of the injustice.

Which is another factual example of marriage honouring the unity of the one sexual orientation to which we all owe our very existence and that union again are heterosexual unions before and after that court made a decision. Here is where the Supreme Court makes a complete mockery of themselves and in this instance the USA while then after expect citizens to respect a bunch of filthy lies and deceptions or face jail:

Today the Court announces that that time has come to recognize the injustice in the disparate treatment of gays and lesbians seeking the right to marry.

Homosexual activists lie by claiming that there is discrimination or an injustice but they obviously do not back that claim with even so much as a shred of validity because this is not an equality or discrimination issue because we all equally have the right to marry those born with the opposite sex genital that we ourselves are born with because that is what marriage was created for and in honour of and thousands of years of only heterosexual unions being honoured with marriage proves it beyond any shadow of doubt.

Homosexual activists even attempt such rhetoric as: The fact something is usually done in some way does not prove that it is has to be done that way, or that it should be done that way

Not anything will ever change the fact throughout the existence of the human race that thanks to heterosexual unions we even exist which is worth honouring with marriage (hence is what marriage was created for and in honour of and thousands of years proves it) no matter how desperately homosexual activist scramble to try and make their every lie and deception the issue because they refuse to accept homosexuals for what homosexuals are! Because homosexual activists refuse to accept homosexuals for what homosexuals are they are throwing away tax dollars with their every lie and deception while causing headaches over complete garbage and I say make these imbeciles pay back every cent out of their own insane pockets! It's likely enough to bring any country enduring such rhetoric out of deficit and beyond!

I don't hate anyone or anything but that doesn't mean that homosexual activist actions do not disgust me and that most certainly doesn't mean that homosexual activist ignorance doesn't infuriate me and that doesn't make homosexual activists obsessive compulsions to lie and deceive on the foundation of their every issue to do with their bias agenda acceptable! And it most certainly doesn't make it acceptable that homosexual activists discriminate others while whining false claims of discrimination along with crying wolf with such lies as hater bigot and homophobe in attempt to bully their way through elected, appointed and designated officials while dictating their lies and deceptions through a corrupted bias main stream media which is how they have gotten away with making this soon to be short lived modern day mockery they have made by corrupting legislation etc. on certain parts of the globe! This is about accountability and it is time that homosexual activists are held accountable for their lies deceptions and discrimination while getting away with treating the public like a bunch of stupid guinea pigs! It is my pleasure to fight the good fight for the well being of the future of the life on this planet and in this instance ridding the world of this homosexual activist / LGBT insanity globally and permanently for the well being and sanity of current and future generations!

What needs to be done to free our innocent little children as well as society as a whole from this homosexual insanity is simply undo everything homosexual activists have done (legislation corrupted etc.) over the past few decades and start from scratch such as restoring marriage to a respectable state only this time make it so all procedures, surgeries and altercations must be made illegal for being used to make a person appear the opposite sex that they are born, as well discrimination against heterosexuality needs to be criminalized for the well being and sanity of current and future generations. Which quite obviously means that tranny, transgender and transsexual needs to be criminalized. Homosexuals wanting to have sex with other homosexuals or even bisexuals are one thing, but homosexuals that discriminate heterosexuals with homosexual deceptions is unacceptable for it is quite obviously robbing heterosexuals of the right to be heterosexuals. Anyone pretending to be the opposite sex encourages homosexuals to think that it is ok to do it as well which again leads to more heterosexual victims which is why pretending to be the opposite sex needs to be criminalized for everyone. This type of homosexual behaviour being forced upon innocent little children in the school system or upon citizens through government is unacceptable!

love

Primary Factual Fundamentalist World Class Activist
David Jeffrey Spetch
Ps. Be good, be strong!
Hamilton Ontario Canada
 
All of the ways in which 'other taxpayers' are being forced to 'subsidize' gay marriage are, by definition, the same ways in which gays are obliged to subsidize hetero marriages.

Right. Because it aids in the effort required to raise children. Hetero couples can procreate, homo couples can't.
 
All of the ways in which 'other taxpayers' are being forced to 'subsidize' gay marriage are, by definition, the same ways in which gays are obliged to subsidize hetero marriages.
The arguments against gay marriage are the same as the arguments against slavery; those with the priveleges trying to deny them to the oppressed.

Hey, here's an idea. what if you read my OP post and respond to the point?
 
What a cluster f$&@ trannys and gays like Bruce Jenner can't even make up their mind of what they are...

Hashtag lost in trannyville

At least he's not asking other people to fund it like the liberals
 
I'm beginning to suspect that criminalizing homosexuality all together and forcing them through therapy is the only reasonable course of action due to homosexual activist insanity escalating this far out of hand as their sick mentalities are being thrust upon innocent little children let alone the rest of society..

Or ... we could leave them alone as long as they don't expect other people to fund their relationships
 
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

SUAEI (shut up and eat it)

Don't think I should have to subsidize trillion dollar wars in the middle east either but I do.
 
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

spoken like someone who's a) never had a family; and b) never gone to work; and c) has zero understanding of reality.

btw, screw you. stay at home mom? how insecure are you?

does it make you feel like you have genitals to have someone in the kitchen when you come home?

thanks but no thanks. we no longer live in 1955. (thank G-d).

a woman (not wackos like you) should be able to decide what SHE wants to do. personally, i don't think anyone should "stay home" because kids go to school and then women can't get back into the work force. but i suppose keeping a woman financially dependent makes you feel better about her not being able to leave you.

pssst... women aren't prisoners. :thus:
 
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

SUAEI (shut up and eat it)

Don't think I should have to subsidize trillion dollar wars in the middle east either but I do.


have you ever seen one of the loons complain about the million dollars baby bush spent to study "if prayer works".

seriously. they're so full of it.
 
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

SUAEI (shut up and eat it)

Don't think I should have to subsidize trillion dollar wars in the middle east either but I do.


have you ever seen one of the loons complain about the million dollars baby bush spent to study "if prayer works".

seriously. they're so full of it.

Bad example as I'm actually interested in effects of intercessory prayer. :) Don't think there's a divine or supernatural component, but have read enough on it I think something's going on. Some kind of 'group think' effect.
 
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

SUAEI (shut up and eat it)

Don't think I should have to subsidize trillion dollar wars in the middle east either but I do.

I don't want to subsidize wars in the middle east, gay mating or straight mating. Taxes should be flat, our military should be for defense. Why does having to subsidize one thing make subsidizing another OK?

And what happened to you being Israeli?

Oh, and you’re not a Democrat. LOL, yeah

I'm apolitical in US politics. Likud in Israel. As a moderate I make fun of dems and repubs equally.

The part that you make fun of both parties equally is even funnier...
 
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

spoken like someone who's a) never had a family; and b) never gone to work; and c) has zero understanding of reality.

btw, screw you. stay at home mom? how insecure are you?

does it make you feel like you have genitals to have someone in the kitchen when you come home?

thanks but no thanks. we no longer live in 1955. (thank G-d).

a woman (not wackos like you) should be able to decide what SHE wants to do. personally, i don't think anyone should "stay home" because kids go to school and then women can't get back into the work force. but i suppose keeping a woman financially dependent makes you feel better about her not being able to leave you.

pssst... women aren't prisoners. :thus:

WTF are you talking about? Isn't it early in the day to be sniffing glue?
 
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

SUAEI (shut up and eat it)

Don't think I should have to subsidize trillion dollar wars in the middle east either but I do.


have you ever seen one of the loons complain about the million dollars baby bush spent to study "if prayer works".

seriously. they're so full of it.

So I'm not a Christian, I call W "one of the worse Presidents in our history," I"m against the wars and even our presence in the middle east and I'm against all government studies and earmarks. If it's worth doing, private industry will do it. You're going a serious O fer...
 
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

SUAEI (shut up and eat it)

Don't think I should have to subsidize trillion dollar wars in the middle east either but I do.


have you ever seen one of the loons complain about the million dollars baby bush spent to study "if prayer works".

seriously. they're so full of it.

Bad example as I'm actually interested in effects of intercessory prayer. :) Don't think there's a divine or supernatural component, but have read enough on it I think something's going on. Some kind of 'group think' effect.

Why should government waste other people's money on that? It's a crime, it's theft. If you support it, fund it. It's not my job to fund your interests.

LOL, didn't work out right for you, did it Jillian dear? You misread the lay of the land ... again. It's what happens when you are driven by ideological zealotry
 
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

SUAEI (shut up and eat it)

Don't think I should have to subsidize trillion dollar wars in the middle east either but I do.


have you ever seen one of the loons complain about the million dollars baby bush spent to study "if prayer works".

seriously. they're so full of it.

Bad example as I'm actually interested in effects of intercessory prayer. :) Don't think there's a divine or supernatural component, but have read enough on it I think something's going on. Some kind of 'group think' effect.

no. it's a good example because while you may be interested in the topic, and perhaps it's interesting in a theoretical fashion to me, as well, but we had no say over the use of that million dollars.

and *that* is the point.

they think they can de-fund whatever they have an objection to.

believe me, i'd like my money back that they used for iraq... but that's not happening either.
 
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

SUAEI (shut up and eat it)

Don't think I should have to subsidize trillion dollar wars in the middle east either but I do.


have you ever seen one of the loons complain about the million dollars baby bush spent to study "if prayer works".

seriously. they're so full of it.

Bad example as I'm actually interested in effects of intercessory prayer. :) Don't think there's a divine or supernatural component, but have read enough on it I think something's going on. Some kind of 'group think' effect.

no. it's a good example because while you may be interested in the topic, and perhaps it's interesting in a theoretical fashion to me, as well, but we had no say over the use of that million dollars.

and *that* is the point.

they think they can de-fund whatever they have an objection to.

believe me, i'd like my money back that they used for iraq... but that's not happening either.

More objectionable things money's been wasted on than that. Uses for wood comes to mind. Think we figured that out a while ago. :)
 
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

SUAEI (shut up and eat it)

Don't think I should have to subsidize trillion dollar wars in the middle east either but I do.


have you ever seen one of the loons complain about the million dollars baby bush spent to study "if prayer works".

seriously. they're so full of it.

Bad example as I'm actually interested in effects of intercessory prayer. :) Don't think there's a divine or supernatural component, but have read enough on it I think something's going on. Some kind of 'group think' effect.

no. it's a good example because while you may be interested in the topic, and perhaps it's interesting in a theoretical fashion to me, as well, but we had no say over the use of that million dollars.

and *that* is the point.

they think they can de-fund whatever they have an objection to.

believe me, i'd like my money back that they used for iraq... but that's not happening either.

More objectionable things money's been wasted on than that. Uses for wood comes to mind. Think we figured that out a while ago. :)

more objectionable? i didn't think we were talking levels of objection... just simply what people object to. i object to my money being used to pay for michelle bachman's husband's pray away the gay fraud. i object to my money subsidizing her family farm. to someone who is an atheist (which i am not but i also don't support the idea that we should be codifying christian dogma) it is a huge and offensive waste of money.
 
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

SUAEI (shut up and eat it)

Don't think I should have to subsidize trillion dollar wars in the middle east either but I do.


have you ever seen one of the loons complain about the million dollars baby bush spent to study "if prayer works".

seriously. they're so full of it.

Bad example as I'm actually interested in effects of intercessory prayer. :) Don't think there's a divine or supernatural component, but have read enough on it I think something's going on. Some kind of 'group think' effect.

no. it's a good example because while you may be interested in the topic, and perhaps it's interesting in a theoretical fashion to me, as well, but we had no say over the use of that million dollars.

and *that* is the point.

they think they can de-fund whatever they have an objection to.

believe me, i'd like my money back that they used for iraq... but that's not happening either.

You really don't understand the discussion. Demonstrating that doesn't bother you apparently.

Sweetie, I'm against all funding other than the basic government functions enumerated in the Constitution. I'm not for picking and choosing, I'm for reading and choosing and cutting everything else out.

Not liberal is still just "Republican" in your tiny little mind, isn't it?
 
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

SUAEI (shut up and eat it)

Don't think I should have to subsidize trillion dollar wars in the middle east either but I do.


have you ever seen one of the loons complain about the million dollars baby bush spent to study "if prayer works".

seriously. they're so full of it.

Bad example as I'm actually interested in effects of intercessory prayer. :) Don't think there's a divine or supernatural component, but have read enough on it I think something's going on. Some kind of 'group think' effect.

no. it's a good example because while you may be interested in the topic, and perhaps it's interesting in a theoretical fashion to me, as well, but we had no say over the use of that million dollars.

and *that* is the point.

they think they can de-fund whatever they have an objection to.

believe me, i'd like my money back that they used for iraq... but that's not happening either.

More objectionable things money's been wasted on than that. Uses for wood comes to mind. Think we figured that out a while ago. :)

So let's cut it all out and not justify one travesty with another.

How's your search for an antisemitic quote from Beck coming?

Did you figure out if you're American or Israeli yet?
 

Forum List

Back
Top