Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[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

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

That trend has continued through this thread as well

 

[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.

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?

Homos don't have kids. They require a hetero to procreate.
Again, lefties with no brains.

 

[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.

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

Yes, Skylar consistently can't deny that I'm right. Since my point is about his opinion, he would know. Game, set and match

 

[kaz]

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.

And who would know your opinion better than you? I'm thinking no one, and you can't deny that I'm right. I have won through conclusive evidence by THE expert on knowing what your opinion is. You

 

[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

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.

So are you saying I'm wrong? You do believe British Intelligence like you believe Miriam the Pure and the Democrats are the liars?

 

[Skylar]

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

The CDC never said that gays are a disease. That would be you. Citing you. Which is pure blithering batshit.

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

Then explain why half of those infected with HIV are women, with another 10% being children.

People living with HIV/AIDS in 2011: 34 million
Proportion of adults living with HIV/AIDS in 2011 who were women (%): 50%
Children living with HIV/AIDS: 3.3 million

Worldwide HIV AIDS Statistics AVERT

Your math seems a bit off

 

[Faun]

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?

Homos don't have kids. They require a hetero to procreate.
Again, lefties with no brains.

They do? So a gay man can't donate his sperm to a gay woman?

 

[bripat9643]

Did you bother to read the OP? The question was a good one: What benefit does society get by imposing gay marriage? Of course the morons here cannot deal with a topic that runs counter to their programmed noises. So they deflect to stupid things like "the personal lives of others."

Nobody is imposing gay marriage

They are merely allowing two people who love each other to marry

LOL! No, federal judges didnt strike down laws and constitutional amendments in states. That was some kind of conservative lie.

Nobody has forced you to marry anyone you don't approve of

They are demanding that we pay benefits to people who have no business being married.

I am required to 'pay benefits' to all sorts of people who have no business being married- most of them straight. What we are demanding is that gay couples be treated under the law the same as my wife and I are treated.

You object to that because you hate gays.

Your view on whether someone has any business being married is obviously not credible. Gay couples are not entitled to be treated the same as heterosexual couples because they can't reproduce.

Every rational person learns to hate queers after they learn how dishonest, irrational, unreasonable, and vicious they are.

 

[kaz]

Two major problems with that argument.

First, gays have kids

Name a gay couple who gay sex led to a kid.

By that argument, people can have a baby by them self. They adopted! Or they got artificial insemination! They had a baby alone! No they didn't, not biologically

 

[Skylar]

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.

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.

And who would know your opinion better than you? I'm thinking no one, and you can't deny that I'm right. I have won through conclusive evidence by THE expert on knowing what your opinion is. You

You said I called the British PM and British Intelligence liars.

Now either you can back that claim up. Or you can't. And as you're demonstrating right now....you can't.

You lied. You can't get around that.

 

[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

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?

Homos don't have kids. They require a hetero to procreate.
Again, lefties with no brains.

They do? So a gay man can't donate his sperm to a gay woman?

Sure, and then the other gay parent isn't involved in the parentage, which is the concept of government marriage, making babies ... together ....

 

[kaz]

You said I called the British PM and British Intelligence liars

And you can't deny it, there is no way around that

 

[Skylar]

Two major problems with that argument.

First, gays have kids

Name a gay couple who gay sex led to a kid.

Who said that a child had to be a product of the couple's sex to be theirs? Ever heard of adoption, surrogacy, artificial insemination, or blended families?

If not, look them up. The entire premise of your argument is moot. As gays and lesbians have kids.

Worse, the 'perpetuate the species' standard isn't one that any straight couple is held to. Why then would we hold gays to it? Or more importantly, why would we ONLY hold gays to it?

Its not like we deny infertile straight couples access to marriage in any state.

By that argument, people can have a baby by them self. They adopted! Or they got artificial insemination! They had a baby alone! No they didn't, not biologically

No one argues that a child adopted and raised by parents isn't their child. Nor do we deny marriage to a couple because one partner is infertile.

You're holding straights to one standard and gays to another. When you apply the same standards to both, you have your answer.

 

[Faun]

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.

Yes, Skylar consistently can't deny that I'm right. Since my point is about his opinion, he would know. Game, set and match

While you may be a legend in your own mind, you made a claim you failed to prove. i.e., you lied. Sorry to inform you, but you don't win arguments by making shit up and lying.

 

[Skylar]

You said I called the British PM and British Intelligence liars

And you can't deny it, there is no way around that

I haven't argued it. Its simply not a debate I've been a part of.

Which makes your claim that I called the British PM and British Intelligence 'liars' all the more fallacious. You made that quote up for me. And even now, don't have the integrity to admit you lied.

Shrugging......you merely prove me right again: you lie.

 

[kaz]

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

The CDC never said that gays are a disease. That would be you. Citing you. Which is pure blithering batshit.

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

Then explain why half of those infected with HIV are women, with another 10% being children.

People living with HIV/AIDS in 2011: 34 million
Proportion of adults living with HIV/AIDS in 2011 who were women (%): 50%
Children living with HIV/AIDS: 3.3 million

Worldwide HIV AIDS Statistics AVERT

Your math seems a bit off

My statistics were for the US, yours world wide.

Actually though I was looking at raw data and the numbers I only gave were only for men, about 72% of male HIV cases were gay. There were an additional 10 million women. That still means for the US it was 35 million men and 10 million women and the gay males were not 72% of the total population but about 56%. of the cases. Still was disproportionate for 2.2% of the population. Actually 1.1% assuming that the 2.2% is half male half female

 

[Faun]

You said I called the British PM and British Intelligence liars

And you can't deny it, there is no way around that

He doesn't need to confirm or deny it. Why would he? You made the claim that he said it. Either you can prove it or you can't.

It's beyond obvious you can't.

 

[Skylar]

Nobody is imposing gay marriage

They are merely allowing two people who love each other to marry

LOL! No, federal judges didnt strike down laws and constitutional amendments in states. That was some kind of conservative lie.

Nobody has forced you to marry anyone you don't approve of

They are demanding that we pay benefits to people who have no business being married.

I am required to 'pay benefits' to all sorts of people who have no business being married- most of them straight. What we are demanding is that gay couples be treated under the law the same as my wife and I are treated.

You object to that because you hate gays.

Your view on whether someone has any business being married is obviously not credible. Gay couples are not entitled to be treated the same as heterosexual couples because they can't reproduce.

And what state requires a couple be able to reproduce in order to get married? Not one. That's 0 out of 50 States. The standard you're citing doesn't exist. And infertile couples by the millions are allowed to marry or remain married.

Why then we exclude gays from marriage for failing to meet a standard that doesn't exist and applies to no one?

Rationally, we wouldn't.

Every rational person learns to hate queers after they learn how dishonest, irrational, unreasonable, and vicious they are.

Um, none of what you just said was rational.

 

[kaz]

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.

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.

Yes, Skylar consistently can't deny that I'm right. Since my point is about his opinion, he would know. Game, set and match

While you may be a legend in your own mind, you made a claim you failed to prove. i.e., you lied. Sorry to inform you, but you don't win arguments by making shit up and lying.

Skylar can't deny it, of course he can't. It's a trap, he's correct. Either he shows he's a hypocrite (by calling British Intelligence liars in the exact same role as Miriam who he believes is Sainted), or he splits from the Democratic party and calls them liars defending W.

The irony is the latter reason is why I said he said that, and his refusal to deny it does prove that

 

[Skylar]

You said I called the British PM and British Intelligence liars

And you can't deny it, there is no way around that

He doesn't need to confirm or deny it. Why would he? You made the claim that he said it. Either you can prove it or you can't.

It's beyond obvious you can't.

Exactly. Kaz lied his ass off, making up imaginary quotes that I never made on topics I haven't debated.

He's kind enough to demonstrate this simple lack of integrity again and again for us......by perpetuating the same lie. Its so gloriously pointless, with Kaz burning credibility in exchange for nothing.

And he can't stop himself.