Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[Syriusly]

Could you please link to the CDC defining homosexuality as a disease?

CDC Fact Sheet - Gay and Bisexual Men Gender Risk HIV AIDS

And then remind us that you don't believe the existence of the CDC is constitutional.

Remind me where I said that. You want to know my view, ask me, don't tell me what my view is

Link doesnt show the cdc defining homosexuality as a disease, dunderhead.

Sure it does. It's the "CDC," the "Center for Disease[/u] Control and so they study diseases. They study gays, so they are saying gays are a disease. And in that link they are saying HIV is a gay disease, it's a disease of the diseased. Get it now?

Good God Almighty, kaz.

It is going to be very, very difficult for another retard to top your stupidity.

No, seriously. I don't think I will live long enough to see anyone do it.

Yet another leftist without higher cognitive functions. I stopped trying to reason with the kool aid chuggers, I was screwing with them

I.E. Kaz was lying again.

The only question is- which posts of Kaz's posts are lies- or are they all?

 

[kaz]

Of course he will. I'm still waiting for him to quote me calling the British PM and British Intelligence liars.

You lost that argument, why are you bringing it up again?

Because I've never argued the point. You've hallucinated all of it, literally making up elaborate statements I've never made and attributing it to me.

Which is my point. You lie. When your argument runs out of steam, you just start making shit up. Like your bizarre hallucination that I called the British PM and British Intelligence liars.

I'm still waiting for you to back that nonsense up. And you're still gloriously failing.

That was classic, we had the expert on your opinion, you . Your point was you can't deny what I said, but I should go out and prove it because you can't say what your position is

You're proving my point again. You're just making up dialogue for me, pulled sideways out of your ass. And when I challenge you to quote me saying that the 'British PM and British Intelligence are liars'....

.........you've got nothing. Liars never do.

The challenge remains open. Quote me. We both know you can't, as we both know you made that shit up.

I don't research things because you tell me to no matter how massive your ego is. If you want me to research what I said about your opinion, you have to deny it. Was W a liar over yellowcake? What is your standard? Do you trust British Intelligence implicitly as you trust Miriam The Inept implicitly? Clarify your standard before you ask me to research your standard

 

[kaz]

CDC Fact Sheet - Gay and Bisexual Men Gender Risk HIV AIDS

Remind me where I said that. You want to know my view, ask me, don't tell me what my view is

Link doesnt show the cdc defining homosexuality as a disease, dunderhead.

Sure it does. It's the "CDC," the "Center for Disease[/u] Control and so they study diseases. They study gays, so they are saying gays are a disease. And in that link they are saying HIV is a gay disease, it's a disease of the diseased. Get it now?

Good God Almighty, kaz.

It is going to be very, very difficult for another retard to top your stupidity.

No, seriously. I don't think I will live long enough to see anyone do it.

Yet another leftist without higher cognitive functions. I stopped trying to reason with the kool aid chuggers, I was screwing with them

I.E. Kaz was lying again.

The only question is- which posts of Kaz's posts are lies- or are they all?

Most are not, but you may want to question everything I say in threads with brain dead zombies like you, Skylar, g5000, Bodecea and NYCarbineer

 

[Syriusly]

Worse, since Kaz has bizarrely insisted that gays are a disease because they're mentioned by the CDC.

Typical Skylar Bull Shit - Quoting people out of context

- AT least that's what I think you're doing - you couldn't possibly be stupid enough to think that's what she really said ... well --- yeah okay - maybe

That's one possibility. Another is that you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about and are babbling incoherently. Lets check the record to see which:

Sure it does. It's the "CDC," the "Center for Disease[/u] Control and so they study diseases. They study gays, so they are saying gays are a disease. And in that link they are saying HIV is a gay disease, it's a disease of the diseased. Get it now?

Kaz
Post 588
Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating Page 59 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

You were saying, Greenbean?

I was saying you twisted and quoted out of context. While the eloquence of Kaz leaves a tad to be desired - The sum and substance of her post was that HIV is [predominantly] a Gay Disease.

And that Gays are Diseased - which sadly they are, in the respect that they are mentally psychologically diseased as well as being more prone to physical maladies largely arising from their perverted lifestyles. omosessuale panda capice ?

Just pointing out that you are of course wrong.

HIV doesn't care whether you are gay or not. The majority of HIV cases are not with homosexuals and Lesbians are statistically less likely to contract HIV than straights.

 

[kaz]

Link doesnt show the cdc defining homosexuality as a disease, dunderhead.

Sure it does. It's the "CDC," the "Center for Disease[/u] Control and so they study diseases. They study gays, so they are saying gays are a disease. And in that link they are saying HIV is a gay disease, it's a disease of the diseased. Get it now?

Good God Almighty, kaz.

It is going to be very, very difficult for another retard to top your stupidity.

No, seriously. I don't think I will live long enough to see anyone do it.

That was pretty stupid. I've already linked to the post and shown it to a few of my friends. We've been laughing since breakfast.

Worse, since Kaz has bizarrely insisted that gays are a disease because they're mentioned by the CDC........then does that mean that pregnant women, infants and children are also a disease because they have been mentioned by the CDC?

HIV transmission from mother to child during pregnancy, labor and delivery, or breastfeeding is known as perinatal transmission and is the most common route of HIV infection in children. When HIV is diagnosed before or during pregnancy, perinatal transmission can be reduced to less than 1% if appropriate medical treatment is given, the virus becomes undetectable, and breastfeeding is avoided.

CDC - HIV Among Pregnant Women Infants and Children - Pregnant Women Gender Risk

Kaz is the kind of batshit that just keeps on shitting.

You're the idiot that keeps on giving. Don't take calls from telemarketers. Trust me on that one

Yeah, if you told me the sun was shining at noon, I'd still go out and check. You're about as unreliable a source as there is.

As you don't know what you're talking about.

And you lie.

Wow, the massive, inflated ego goes playground, of course you do

 

[Syriusly]

Link doesnt show the cdc defining homosexuality as a disease, dunderhead.

Sure it does. It's the "CDC," the "Center for Disease[/u] Control and so they study diseases. They study gays, so they are saying gays are a disease. And in that link they are saying HIV is a gay disease, it's a disease of the diseased. Get it now?

Good God Almighty, kaz.

It is going to be very, very difficult for another retard to top your stupidity.

No, seriously. I don't think I will live long enough to see anyone do it.

Yet another leftist without higher cognitive functions. I stopped trying to reason with the kool aid chuggers, I was screwing with them

I.E. Kaz was lying again.

The only question is- which posts of Kaz's posts are lies- or are they all?

Most are not, but you may want to question everything I say in threads with brain dead zombies like you, Skylar, g5000, Bodecea and NYCarbineer

Like I said- you lie.

The only question is are their any posts where you are not lying?

 

[bodecea]

Sure it does. It's the "CDC," the "Center for Disease[/u] Control and so they study diseases. They study gays, so they are saying gays are a disease. And in that link they are saying HIV is a gay disease, it's a disease of the diseased. Get it now?

Good God Almighty, kaz.

It is going to be very, very difficult for another retard to top your stupidity.

No, seriously. I don't think I will live long enough to see anyone do it.

Yet another leftist without higher cognitive functions. I stopped trying to reason with the kool aid chuggers, I was screwing with them

I.E. Kaz was lying again.

The only question is- which posts of Kaz's posts are lies- or are they all?

Most are not, but you may want to question everything I say in threads with brain dead zombies like you, Skylar, g5000, Bodecea and NYCarbineer

Like I said- you lie.

The only question is are their any posts where you are not lying?

Hmmmm...that's a tough one to answer.

 

[Skylar]

Of course he will. I'm still waiting for him to quote me calling the British PM and British Intelligence liars.

You lost that argument, why are you bringing it up again?

Because I've never argued the point. You've hallucinated all of it, literally making up elaborate statements I've never made and attributing it to me.

Which is my point. You lie. When your argument runs out of steam, you just start making shit up. Like your bizarre hallucination that I called the British PM and British Intelligence liars.

I'm still waiting for you to back that nonsense up. And you're still gloriously failing.

That was classic, we had the expert on your opinion, you . Your point was you can't deny what I said, but I should go out and prove it because you can't say what your position is

You're proving my point again. You're just making up dialogue for me, pulled sideways out of your ass. And when I challenge you to quote me saying that the 'British PM and British Intelligence are liars'....

.........you've got nothing. Liars never do.

The challenge remains open. Quote me. We both know you can't, as we both know you made that shit up.

I don't research things because you tell me to no matter how massive your ego is. If you want me to research what I said about your opinion, you have to deny it.

I'm asking you to do nothing more than back up your claim that I called the British PM and British Intelligence liars.

And you've failed perfectly to back up your claim every time. You lied. Claiming I said things that I never did. Again, Kaz....we've all seen your schtick. We know you lie.

You're elegantly proving it for us one more time.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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

What? When did they raise taxes to pay for gay sex? Are you fucked in the head or something?

 

[Faun]

Worse, since Kaz has bizarrely insisted that gays are a disease because they're mentioned by the CDC.

Typical Skylar Bull Shit - Quoting people out of context

- AT least that's what I think you're doing - you couldn't possibly be stupid enough to think that's what she really said ... well --- yeah okay - maybe

That's one possibility. Another is that you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about and are babbling incoherently. Lets check the record to see which:

Sure it does. It's the "CDC," the "Center for Disease[/u] Control and so they study diseases. They study gays, so they are saying gays are a disease. And in that link they are saying HIV is a gay disease, it's a disease of the diseased. Get it now?

Kaz
Post 588
Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating Page 59 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

You were saying, Greenbean?

I was saying you twisted and quoted out of context. While the eloquence of Kaz leaves a tad to be desired - The sum and substance of her post was that HIV is [predominantly] a Gay Disease.

And that Gays are Diseased - which sadly they are, in the respect that they are mentally psychologically diseased as well as being more prone to physical maladies largely arising from their perverted lifestyles. omosessuale panda capice ?

Too bad that's not what he said. He said gays are a disease, not gays are diseased.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

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've been making that point for years and no pro-homo or left winger understands it enough to respond with anything beyond disparagement.

 

[Faun]

Of course he will. I'm still waiting for him to quote me calling the British PM and British Intelligence liars.

You lost that argument, why are you bringing it up again?

Because I've never argued the point. You've hallucinated all of it, literally making up elaborate statements I've never made and attributing it to me.

Which is my point. You lie. When your argument runs out of steam, you just start making shit up. Like your bizarre hallucination that I called the British PM and British Intelligence liars.

I'm still waiting for you to back that nonsense up. And you're still gloriously failing.

That was classic, we had the expert on your opinion, you . Your point was you can't deny what I said, but I should go out and prove it because you can't say what your position is

You're proving my point again. You're just making up dialogue for me, pulled sideways out of your ass. And when I challenge you to quote me saying that the 'British PM and British Intelligence are liars'....

.........you've got nothing. Liars never do.

The challenge remains open. Quote me. We both know you can't, as we both know you made that shit up.

I don't research things because you tell me to no matter how massive your ego is. If you want me to research what I said about your opinion, you have to deny it.

I'm asking you to do nothing more than back up your claim that I called the British PM and British Intelligence liars.

And you've failed perfectly to back up your claim every time. You lied. Claiming I said things that I never did. Again, Kaz....we've all seen your schtick. We know you lie.

You're elegantly proving it for us one more time.

Even worse for that nutjob ... now he thinks he won that argument.

 

[Skylar]

Of course he will. I'm still waiting for him to quote me calling the British PM and British Intelligence liars.

You lost that argument, why are you bringing it up again?

Because I've never argued the point. You've hallucinated all of it, literally making up elaborate statements I've never made and attributing it to me.

Which is my point. You lie. When your argument runs out of steam, you just start making shit up. Like your bizarre hallucination that I called the British PM and British Intelligence liars.

I'm still waiting for you to back that nonsense up. And you're still gloriously failing.

That was classic, we had the expert on your opinion, you . Your point was you can't deny what I said, but I should go out and prove it because you can't say what your position is

You're proving my point again. You're just making up dialogue for me, pulled sideways out of your ass. And when I challenge you to quote me saying that the 'British PM and British Intelligence are liars'....

.........you've got nothing. Liars never do.

The challenge remains open. Quote me. We both know you can't, as we both know you made that shit up.

I don't research things because you tell me to no matter how massive your ego is. If you want me to research what I said about your opinion, you have to deny it.

I'm asking you to do nothing more than back up your claim that I called the British PM and British Intelligence liars.

And you've failed perfectly to back up your claim every time. You lied. Claiming I said things that I never did. Again, Kaz....we've all seen your schtick. We know you lie.

You're elegantly proving it for us one more time.

Even worse for that nutjob ... now he thinks he won that argument.

Shrugs.....whatever. We're definitely into 'consider the source' territory.

 

[kaz]

Sure it does. It's the "CDC," the "Center for Disease[/u] Control and so they study diseases. They study gays, so they are saying gays are a disease. And in that link they are saying HIV is a gay disease, it's a disease of the diseased. Get it now?

Good God Almighty, kaz.

It is going to be very, very difficult for another retard to top your stupidity.

No, seriously. I don't think I will live long enough to see anyone do it.

Yet another leftist without higher cognitive functions. I stopped trying to reason with the kool aid chuggers, I was screwing with them

I.E. Kaz was lying again.

The only question is- which posts of Kaz's posts are lies- or are they all?

Most are not, but you may want to question everything I say in threads with brain dead zombies like you, Skylar, g5000, Bodecea and NYCarbineer

Like I said- you lie.

The only question is are their any posts where you are not lying?

That's the question I just answered, Skippy

 

[Skylar]

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've been making that point for years and no pro-homo or left winger understands it enough to respond with anything beyond disparagement.

Two major problems with that argument.

First, gays have kids. Before gay marriage was recognized there were an estimated 40,000 children of same sex parents in California alone. So the 'do not perpetuate the species' angle is moot.

Second, who says you have to perpetuate the species in order to get married? Infertile people marry all the time. Infertile folks stay married. People get married and choose never to have kids. Yet they're perfectly welcome to the union. So the criteria selected (perpetuation of the species)isn't one that we use for any couple. Nor is it required of anyone.

So why would we apply this standard to gays?

 

[Faun]

Of course he will. I'm still waiting for him to quote me calling the British PM and British Intelligence liars.

You lost that argument, why are you bringing it up again?

Because I've never argued the point. You've hallucinated all of it, literally making up elaborate statements I've never made and attributing it to me.

Which is my point. You lie. When your argument runs out of steam, you just start making shit up. Like your bizarre hallucination that I called the British PM and British Intelligence liars.

I'm still waiting for you to back that nonsense up. And you're still gloriously failing.

That was classic, we had the expert on your opinion, you . Your point was you can't deny what I said, but I should go out and prove it because you can't say what your position is

You're proving my point again. You're just making up dialogue for me, pulled sideways out of your ass. And when I challenge you to quote me saying that the 'British PM and British Intelligence are liars'....

.........you've got nothing. Liars never do.

The challenge remains open. Quote me. We both know you can't, as we both know you made that shit up.

I don't research things because you tell me to no matter how massive your ego is. If you want me to research what I said about your opinion, you have to deny it. Was W a liar over yellowcake? What is your standard? Do you trust British Intelligence implicitly as you trust Miriam The Inept implicitly? Clarify your standard before you ask me to research your standard

There's nothing to research since you made it up.

 

[Skylar]

Of course he will. I'm still waiting for him to quote me calling the British PM and British Intelligence liars.

You lost that argument, why are you bringing it up again?

Because I've never argued the point. You've hallucinated all of it, literally making up elaborate statements I've never made and attributing it to me.

Which is my point. You lie. When your argument runs out of steam, you just start making shit up. Like your bizarre hallucination that I called the British PM and British Intelligence liars.

I'm still waiting for you to back that nonsense up. And you're still gloriously failing.

That was classic, we had the expert on your opinion, you . Your point was you can't deny what I said, but I should go out and prove it because you can't say what your position is

You're proving my point again. You're just making up dialogue for me, pulled sideways out of your ass. And when I challenge you to quote me saying that the 'British PM and British Intelligence are liars'....

.........you've got nothing. Liars never do.

The challenge remains open. Quote me. We both know you can't, as we both know you made that shit up.

I don't research things because you tell me to no matter how massive your ego is. If you want me to research what I said about your opinion, you have to deny it. Was W a liar over yellowcake? What is your standard? Do you trust British Intelligence implicitly as you trust Miriam The Inept implicitly? Clarify your standard before you ask me to research your standard

There's nothing to research since you made it up.

Exactly. Kaz makes shit up. Kaz abandons it.

The tide of batshit goes in. The tide of batshit goes out.

Its sort of soothing if you just listen to the predictable rhythm of it.

 

[kaz]

Worse, since Kaz has bizarrely insisted that gays are a disease because they're mentioned by the CDC.

Typical Skylar Bull Shit - Quoting people out of context

- AT least that's what I think you're doing - you couldn't possibly be stupid enough to think that's what she really said ... well --- yeah okay - maybe

That's one possibility. Another is that you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about and are babbling incoherently. Lets check the record to see which:

Sure it does. It's the "CDC," the "Center for Disease[/u] Control and so they study diseases. They study gays, so they are saying gays are a disease. And in that link they are saying HIV is a gay disease, it's a disease of the diseased. Get it now?

Kaz
Post 588
Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating Page 59 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

You were saying, Greenbean?

I was saying you twisted and quoted out of context. While the eloquence of Kaz leaves a tad to be desired - The sum and substance of her post was that HIV is [predominantly] a Gay Disease.

And that Gays are Diseased - which sadly they are, in the respect that they are mentally psychologically diseased as well as being more prone to physical maladies largely arising from their perverted lifestyles. omosessuale panda capice ?

Just pointing out that you are of course wrong.

HIV doesn't care whether you are gay or not. The majority of HIV cases are not with homosexuals and Lesbians are statistically less likely to contract HIV than straights.

According to the CDC who study gays, who they are saying are a disease, and HIV,

2.2% of the population is gay

In 2013, 72% of HIV infections were for gay males.

HIV is clearly a gay disease, Sparky. Sorry. It's a disease of the diseased

 

[kaz]

Of course he will. I'm still waiting for him to quote me calling the British PM and British Intelligence liars.

You lost that argument, why are you bringing it up again?

Because I've never argued the point. You've hallucinated all of it, literally making up elaborate statements I've never made and attributing it to me.

Which is my point. You lie. When your argument runs out of steam, you just start making shit up. Like your bizarre hallucination that I called the British PM and British Intelligence liars.

I'm still waiting for you to back that nonsense up. And you're still gloriously failing.

That was classic, we had the expert on your opinion, you . Your point was you can't deny what I said, but I should go out and prove it because you can't say what your position is

You're proving my point again. You're just making up dialogue for me, pulled sideways out of your ass. And when I challenge you to quote me saying that the 'British PM and British Intelligence are liars'....

.........you've got nothing. Liars never do.

The challenge remains open. Quote me. We both know you can't, as we both know you made that shit up.

I don't research things because you tell me to no matter how massive your ego is. If you want me to research what I said about your opinion, you have to deny it.

I'm asking you to do nothing more than back up your claim that I called the British PM and British Intelligence liars.

And you've failed perfectly to back up your claim every time. You lied. Claiming I said things that I never did. Again, Kaz....we've all seen your schtick. We know you lie.

You're elegantly proving it for us one more time.

I'm lying? So you are denying that W is a liar and you agree the Democrats are the ones who lied about yellowcake? That is progress, thank you for confirming it finally. I'll accept that

 

[kaz]

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

What? When did they raise taxes to pay for gay sex? Are you fucked in the head or something?

What? When did they cut spending to make up for tax cuts for gay sex? Are you fucked in the head or something?