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.
I see that you noticed that Kaz stated he doesn't support government marriage. Did he share with you what he has ACTIVELY done to end government marriage? Including NOT being legally married himself?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 seem to think that gays can't have heterosexual sex....we can....we wouldn't like it, but if the need is there..............Youre the one who assumed we need straights in order to perpetuate the species. We dont, pretty clearly.No they wouldnt.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.
Im not Stephanie but OK. No, people respondng cannot handle anything outside the norm. It is like they are programmed only to respond in certain ways. Anything else causes a default to the preprogrammed response.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
Great post, Stephanie! Loved it! Wow, you nailed that one. Exactly what I expected, that the left would not be able to address the question. OK, not a tough prediction. But once again demonstrated...
Marriage government gifts are separate from government gifts you get for having kids. So it is not a given that marriage government gifts are there to encourage procreation.
They are bread and circuses to please the crowd's demand. Nothing more. It is what the crowd demanded. Everything else is the bogus rationalization of an entitlement-minded welfare dependent.
Tax benefits for people with children are one of those things that normally conservatives would rant about, i.e.,
people voting themselves money from the government.
Tax benefits for creating new tax payers.
Absurd ain't it?
Now there's a guy who gets the thread. I'm using the left's own standard against them, which you just did as well. They use that argument all the time for government handouts, creates more tax revenue! Nicely played, pop
Links to any of this? Or is this the part where contradictory information is dismissed as biased and based on homophobia?I'll ask th biologists, thank you.
Ask them about parenting? They don't study parenting. Parenting specialists do. Know what they say? You won't like it.
All you do it measure it by test scores on one study you can't find, that's not exactly a compelling argument.
BTW, did you see my mention of you in Bodeca's post where I pointed out to you the truth of my point on why my being a pretend homophobe is irrelevant? She said exactly what I told you, that's what she already thought, LOL
Sarah Palin could not have made more word salad than you just did.
All major Parenting and Child Welfare organizations say the same thing...the children of gays are at no disadvantage to the children of straights. All parenting and child welfare organizations also agree that children do best in two parent households, period.
Kaz...you're just too good at the anti gay thing. Maybe it's the insistence upon using the f word for gay man. Are you as blasé with the n-word?
This is exactly where this is headed.Marriage government gifts are separate from government gifts you get for having kids. So it is not a given that marriage government gifts are there to encourage procreation.
They are bread and circuses to please the crowd's demand. Nothing more. It is what the crowd demanded. Everything else is the bogus rationalization of an entitlement-minded welfare dependent.
Tax benefits for people with children are one of those things that normally conservatives would rant about, i.e.,
people voting themselves money from the government.
Tax benefits for creating new tax payers.
Absurd ain't it?
You get those whether you're married or not.
Absurd ain't it?
This is about marriage?
Hetro same sex couples won't procreate either, but will get all the rights and benefits of marriage, like everyone else.
How long do you think employers will have spousal benefits once straight same sex couples find out how beneficial a 50 buck license is?
Bet they were thinking they'd only have to cover a few gay couples, but damn, the married straight same sex couples could bankrupt that concept.
Marriage government gifts are separate from government gifts you get for having kids. So it is not a given that marriage government gifts are there to encourage procreation.
They are bread and circuses to please the crowd's demand. Nothing more. It is what the crowd demanded. Everything else is the bogus rationalization of an entitlement-minded welfare dependent.
Not true, reduced income taxes and elimination of the death tax are not related to children
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.
Kaz was masking it with his irrational loathing of gays. And that in turn gave those who either don't know, or choose to ignore, that pretty much universally people who find sex with same sex persons or person if more fulfilling, than sex with non-same sex person or persons, have previously had sex with said non-same sex person or persons.
Marriage government gifts are separate from government gifts you get for having kids. So it is not a given that marriage government gifts are there to encourage procreation.
They are bread and circuses to please the crowd's demand. Nothing more. It is what the crowd demanded. Everything else is the bogus rationalization of an entitlement-minded welfare dependent.
Not true, reduced income taxes and elimination of the death tax are not related to children
You get the tax breaks for the kids whether you're married or not. Married tax breaks are not related to children.
These things ARE related to Civil Marriage.
Marriage Rights and Benefits Nolo.com
Links to any of this? Or is this the part where contradictory information is dismissed as biased and based on homophobia?I'll ask th biologists, thank you.
Ask them about parenting? They don't study parenting. Parenting specialists do. Know what they say? You won't like it.
All you do it measure it by test scores on one study you can't find, that's not exactly a compelling argument.
BTW, did you see my mention of you in Bodeca's post where I pointed out to you the truth of my point on why my being a pretend homophobe is irrelevant? She said exactly what I told you, that's what she already thought, LOL
Sarah Palin could not have made more word salad than you just did.
All major Parenting and Child Welfare organizations say the same thing...the children of gays are at no disadvantage to the children of straights. All parenting and child welfare organizations also agree that children do best in two parent households, period.
Kaz...you're just too good at the anti gay thing. Maybe it's the insistence upon using the f word for gay man. Are you as blasé with the n-word?
Marriage government gifts are separate from government gifts you get for having kids. So it is not a given that marriage government gifts are there to encourage procreation.
They are bread and circuses to please the crowd's demand. Nothing more. It is what the crowd demanded. Everything else is the bogus rationalization of an entitlement-minded welfare dependent.
Not true, reduced income taxes and elimination of the death tax are not related to children
You get the tax breaks for the kids whether you're married or not. Married tax breaks are not related to children.
These things ARE related to Civil Marriage.
Marriage Rights and Benefits Nolo.com
Try reading my post again, you didn't contradict it.
Does that help over my just saying "non-sequitur?"
Oh, I see. You are confused between desire and the act. We can all have sex with someone we don't desire....but the desire is what makes us what we are. If the survival of the species required I have sex with a man....I'd do it. But I would never ever desire a man.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?
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?
OopsLinks to any of this? Or is this the part where contradictory information is dismissed as biased and based on homophobia?I'll ask th biologists, thank you.
Ask them about parenting? They don't study parenting. Parenting specialists do. Know what they say? You won't like it.
All you do it measure it by test scores on one study you can't find, that's not exactly a compelling argument.
BTW, did you see my mention of you in Bodeca's post where I pointed out to you the truth of my point on why my being a pretend homophobe is irrelevant? She said exactly what I told you, that's what she already thought, LOL
Sarah Palin could not have made more word salad than you just did.
All major Parenting and Child Welfare organizations say the same thing...the children of gays are at no disadvantage to the children of straights. All parenting and child welfare organizations also agree that children do best in two parent households, period.
Kaz...you're just too good at the anti gay thing. Maybe it's the insistence upon using the f word for gay man. Are you as blasé with the n-word?
Direct links to policy statements in one place:
Professional Organizations on LGBT Parenting Resources Human Rights Campaign
About as mental as the poster who stated that gay marriage was the reason there were so many out-of-wedlock births in Europe.The species is going to die out if gays are allowed to marry.
How mental is that?
Oh yeah, I remember that. Who was behind that gem of a thread?About as mental as the poster who stated that gay marriage was the reason there were so many out-of-wedlock births in Europe.The species is going to die out if gays are allowed to marry.
How mental is that?
jesus loves you.OopsLinks to any of this? Or is this the part where contradictory information is dismissed as biased and based on homophobia?Ask them about parenting? They don't study parenting. Parenting specialists do. Know what they say? You won't like it.
All you do it measure it by test scores on one study you can't find, that's not exactly a compelling argument.
BTW, did you see my mention of you in Bodeca's post where I pointed out to you the truth of my point on why my being a pretend homophobe is irrelevant? She said exactly what I told you, that's what she already thought, LOL
Sarah Palin could not have made more word salad than you just did.
All major Parenting and Child Welfare organizations say the same thing...the children of gays are at no disadvantage to the children of straights. All parenting and child welfare organizations also agree that children do best in two parent households, period.
Kaz...you're just too good at the anti gay thing. Maybe it's the insistence upon using the f word for gay man. Are you as blasé with the n-word?
Direct links to policy statements in one place:
Professional Organizations on LGBT Parenting Resources Human Rights Campaign
WORLD Study Same-sex parents just aren t the same Daniel James Devine Feb. 17 2015
I see...thus your complete lack of interest in this thread.............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 gays and gay couples are of the people too. Or don't you think so?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.
Gays can feel free to lobby their representatives in congress to pass bills favorable to gays.And when this June rolls around..................
Meh, makes no difference to me I have no interest in what gays are up to except when they go all militant in attacking businesses. They should take care to avoid over reaching and pissing off the majority.
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:
And what of those straight couples who don't intend on having children? Better yet, why should other taxpayers have to subsidize straight mating?
Without straight mating there is no government?
Hummmm
Did it take tax breaks to get the human race to procreate? How much did the average caveman family get?
I guess it's more productive than not. Cavemen? Are there cavemen in the US?
Did non breeding humans produce the population required to advance society?
Interesting the things we take for granted.
The doctor that saves lives, products of opposite sex couplings.
Hmmmm
No...they took care of the children while others were out. And helped financially.
The evolutionary puzzle of homosexuality - BBC News
I'm not afraid to admit that there are many people smarter than I am. You, my dear, are not one of them.So much for your claim that this is a "financial thread".^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
It always cracks me up how liberals are too arrogant and stupid to process your being mocked. You think no one is smarter than you are, which makes you wrong about everyone...
