Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[bodecea]

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

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

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

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

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

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

If the fundie nutters get what they want, this is a first step in requiring heterosexual couples to reproduce in order for their marriage to be legally recognized and for them to get the couple's tax break.

Note to OP -

1. If you're not gay, you really can't say what their sex is like FOR THEM.

2. No one "subsidizes" stay-at-home mothers and, if they can afford it, there's no other reason why a gay parent cannot stay home with their child.

Gays make up less than 5% of our population. An even smaller percentage of those will get married. You really think this will amount to much money?

The hateful RWs really need to stop their meddling and MYOB.

Gay couples don't have children.

The law disagrees. My wife and I are our children's parents. We have the birth certificates to prove it.

Gay sex doesn't create children. Though a couple of hot women could create a great video

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.

My God, you are really stupid. Try reading the post again, bimbo

Oh, I read the post just fine. I still don't understand why you would think being called gay is an insult. It's never been an insult to me. But, you facing your demons isn't really something I can relate to.

 

[kaz]

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

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

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...

I'm not afraid to admit that there are many people smarter than I am. You, my dear, are not one of them.

Empirical data directly contradicts that hypothesis

Provide said empirical data.

This and every other discussion we have where you can't follow the discussion and you have no long term memory, both classic symptoms of liberalism

 

[ogibillm]

kaz,
why do you assume that a homosexual couple does not provide the same financial benefit to society that a heterosexual couple does?

I'm not sure what you are asking me that I didn't cover in my OP post. Also, I didn't make the assumption you just said, I said that's the "concept," it's what people generally think. I didn't say what I think. Though I did repeatedly in the thread. I think there is a better solution than government marriage for everyone, gay or straight, than government marriage

you outlined what you thought the fiscal benefit to society was of heterosexual marriage in your op.
what i'm curious to know is why you do not believe homosexual marriage offers the same benefit?

 

[bodecea]

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.

So what do the rest of us get out of gays getting those things?

Finally! A relevant post to the thread. And of course it didn't come from a liberal. They are unable to see past their own bias

Now, there's some good juicy Irony there.

 

[ogibillm]

No, not true.

See the whole debate has been whether gays can marry. No straight same sex couple has yet figured out the cool benefits that they could get by simply marrying.

A 50 buck license could save hundreds a month on health insurance alone.

AND there is no reason they can't just keep dating.

Once people figure this out, it's pure BANK.

Oh its a super secret from straight people?

Lol wow

Have you heard it discussed elsewhere?

Kindly link this.

Yes. Each year i do my taxes or taxes for others, its pretty common knowledge.

I'll try again

Please link to a source discussing same sex straight marriage and its financial benefits.

GT is an idiot. As the spousal benefits add up and as the sanctity of marriage goes away we will see more of this. There is already an issue with convenience marriages for citizrenship. When marriage is nothing more than a fee and a license, and you can save hundreds of thousands of dollas by doing it it will become commonplace.

your problem isn't with marriage. it's with divorce.

 

[kaz]

Oh, I read the post just fine. I still don't understand why you would think being called gay is an insult. It's never been an insult to me. But, you facing your demons isn't really something I can relate to.

You are not a smart girl. Why are you not asking GT why she implied I'm gay as an insult? Why do you keep asking me why she tried to use being gay as an insult? I don't know, ask her

 

[kaz]

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.

So what do the rest of us get out of gays getting those things?

Finally! A relevant post to the thread. And of course it didn't come from a liberal. They are unable to see past their own bias

Now, there's some good juicy Irony there.

Yes, I'm not liberal, you nailed me. Wow, what an insight, that was awesome

 

[Pop23]

No, not true.

See the whole debate has been whether gays can marry. No straight same sex couple has yet figured out the cool benefits that they could get by simply marrying.

A 50 buck license could save hundreds a month on health insurance alone.

AND there is no reason they can't just keep dating.

Once people figure this out, it's pure BANK.

Oh its a super secret from straight people?

Lol wow

Have you heard it discussed elsewhere?

Kindly link this.

Yes. Each year i do my taxes or taxes for others, its pretty common knowledge.

I'll try again

Please link to a source discussing same sex straight marriage and its financial benefits.

GT is an idiot. As the spousal benefits add up and as the sanctity of marriage goes away we will see more of this. There is already an issue with convenience marriages for citizrenship. When marriage is nothing more than a fee and a license, and you can save hundreds of thousands of dollas by doing it it will become commonplace.

Odd isn't it, how they think the world will keep thinking in traditional terms after the traditions have been redefined.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

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.

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.

You people are actually, really, truly stupid. That is the one thing you continually demonstrate

Kaz yanking his own dick again.

I am surprised he has managed to keep it attached.

 

[kaz]

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

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

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

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

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

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

If the fundie nutters get what they want, this is a first step in requiring heterosexual couples to reproduce in order for their marriage to be legally recognized and for them to get the couple's tax break.

Note to OP -

1. If you're not gay, you really can't say what their sex is like FOR THEM.

2. No one "subsidizes" stay-at-home mothers and, if they can afford it, there's no other reason why a gay parent cannot stay home with their child.

Gays make up less than 5% of our population. An even smaller percentage of those will get married. You really think this will amount to much money?

The hateful RWs really need to stop their meddling and MYOB.

Gay couples don't have children.

The law disagrees. My wife and I are our children's parents. We have the birth certificates to prove it.

Gay sex doesn't create children. Though a couple of hot women could create a great video

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.

My God, you are really stupid. Try reading the post again, bimbo

Oh, I read the post just fine. I still don't understand why you would think being called gay is an insult. It's never been an insult to me. But, you facing your demons isn't really something I can relate to.

The CDC is trying to help you, God Speed

 

[NYcarbineer]

No, not true.

See the whole debate has been whether gays can marry. No straight same sex couple has yet figured out the cool benefits that they could get by simply marrying.

A 50 buck license could save hundreds a month on health insurance alone.

AND there is no reason they can't just keep dating.

Once people figure this out, it's pure BANK.

Oh its a super secret from straight people?

Lol wow

Have you heard it discussed elsewhere?

Kindly link this.

Yes. Each year i do my taxes or taxes for others, its pretty common knowledge.

I'll try again

Please link to a source discussing same sex straight marriage and its financial benefits.

GT is an idiot. As the spousal benefits add up and as the sanctity of marriage goes away we will see more of this. There is already an issue with convenience marriages for citizrenship. When marriage is nothing more than a fee and a license, and you can save hundreds of thousands of dollas by doing it it will become commonplace.

Who saves hundreds of thousands of dollars by getting married?

 

[kaz]

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.

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.

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.

You people are actually, really, truly stupid. That is the one thing you continually demonstrate

Kaz yanking his own dick again.

I am surprised he has managed to keep it attached.

I only have that problem after seeing some great lesbian porn. Gay is a disease, you know. The CDC says so and they are trying to help. I'm hoping it's just a vitamin deficiency and they can fix them without medication. Though medication would be better than hell I suppose. Don't you think?

 

[Syriusly]

>

Just curious, form a point that was made earlier.

The CDC tracks diseases that impact homosexuals (i.e. rates of infection for HIV). Therefore being a homosexual is a disease.

Since the CDC tracks diseases that impact women (i.e. breast cancer for example - swap a male disease like testicular cancer if you wish) does that mean that being a woman (or a man) is a disease?


>>>>

Just so you know, I really try to respond to everyone who quotes me. But I get so many responses that I can't even always do that. If you don't quote me, I will only see your posts by shear luck. I did happen to see this one.

The CDC argument I only use with the most leftist of moonbats like Syrious, Faun, Skylar and Bodecea who are so far removed from actually addressing any lucid point that I just fuck with them. I'm not serious

In other words- Kaz is comfortable lying when it suites him- so just keep that in mind with anything he says.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

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.

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.

You people are actually, really, truly stupid. That is the one thing you continually demonstrate

Kaz yanking his own dick again.

I am surprised he has managed to keep it attached.

I only have that problem after seeing some great lesbian porn.

So you are watching lesbian porn while you continue to jerk off here at USMB- what a multi-tasker.

 

[kaz]

>

Just curious, form a point that was made earlier.

The CDC tracks diseases that impact homosexuals (i.e. rates of infection for HIV). Therefore being a homosexual is a disease.

Since the CDC tracks diseases that impact women (i.e. breast cancer for example - swap a male disease like testicular cancer if you wish) does that mean that being a woman (or a man) is a disease?


>>>>

Just so you know, I really try to respond to everyone who quotes me. But I get so many responses that I can't even always do that. If you don't quote me, I will only see your posts by shear luck. I did happen to see this one.

The CDC argument I only use with the most leftist of moonbats like Syrious, Faun, Skylar and Bodecea who are so far removed from actually addressing any lucid point that I just fuck with them. I'm not serious

In other words- Kaz is comfortable lying when it suites him- so just keep that in mind with anything he says.

This is actually remarkably lucid for you. If you have anything you've been putting of because you know you'd fuck it up out of stupidity, I'd rush over and do it now before it wears off

 

[bodecea]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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...

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

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...

Stephanie?

 

[kaz]

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.

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.

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.

You people are actually, really, truly stupid. That is the one thing you continually demonstrate

Kaz yanking his own dick again.

I am surprised he has managed to keep it attached.

I only have that problem after seeing some great lesbian porn.

So you are watching lesbian porn while you continue to jerk off here at USMB- what a multi-tasker.

God no, I wouldn't do that. Why pump up the tire just to let the air out?

 

[kaz]

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

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...

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

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...

Stephanie?

Thanks! Yes, it's Rabbi. His using her old avatar confuses me sometimes. Sorry Rabbi

 

[bodecea]

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.

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.

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.

You people are actually, really, truly stupid. That is the one thing you continually demonstrate

Kaz yanking his own dick again.

I am surprised he has managed to keep it attached.

I only have that problem after seeing some great lesbian porn.

So you are watching lesbian porn while you continue to jerk off here at USMB- what a multi-tasker.

One certainly has to wonder.

 

[bodecea]

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

I'm not against same sex marriage. Same sex straight couples will likely be a higher percentage than gay within a few years.

It's called BANK!

Well, that's would pretty much align with all the straight marriages of convenience that exist now.