Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[Skylar]

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

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

Your math seems a bit off

Your statistics are bullshit. The percentage of HIV cases that are female is far below 50%. Here are the CDC figures:

Statistics Overview Statistics Center HIV AIDS CDC

Male-to-male sexual contact 30,689
Injection drug use 1,942
Male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use 1,270
Heterosexual contact 3,887

Note: heterosexual contact includes female to male transmission. Although the odds of such a thing occurring are lower than your chances of being hit by a meteorite, people lie about it, and the CDC does nothing to check the accuracy of what people claim. So at best the ration of male to female HIV cases looks like this:

(3,997 + 1,942) / (3,997 + 1,942) + (30,689 + 1270) = 5939 / (5939 + 31,959) =
5939/37898 = = 15.7%

Note: all the injection drug use cases were attributed to females when exactly the opposite is more likely to be the case.

In other words, you're full of shit and making things up.

My states are dead on. As surely you realize that HIV exists outside the US.

Surely you do.

Of what relevance are cases outside the united states?

In a discussion of if HIV is a 'gay disease', the fact that most of its victims are women and children would tend to be immediately relevant.

If not, why not?

In this country, that would be a lie. We aren't discussing Africa. You're attempt to include it is just a way of lying.

The claim wasn't 'in this country, HIV is a gay disease'. It was merely 'HIV is a gay disease'.

Which by your qualification and caveats......you clearly recognize is hapless bullshit.

 

[Seawytch]

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?

 

[bripat9643]

In other words, you admit that homosexual couples don't have children.

Our children's birth certificates prove you wrong. They'll tell you themselves how wrong you are.

Really? Who does it list as the biological father of the child?

It does not list one. Parent One: me Parent Two: my wife

ROFL! In other words, it's a fraud. How can both of you possibly the child's biological parents?

You live in a world of make believe.

Bob and Dolores Hope- parents with their children.


Yet their children have none of the Hope's genes

How is this possible?
Does this mean that those children were lying when they called Dolores Hope 'Mother'......

Stay tuned for the next episode of "Responses to Stupid things Bigots Say about Parents"

Puhleeze. This tactic is stupid, even for you. Those are not her children. That's the end of the discussion. "Adopted child" is not the same as "your child."

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Wow...you should be happy I guess that every screw has a nut. Congratulations!

What "point" have you been trying to make? Kaz didn't make one beyond "how come gays should get what I get?".

 

[bripat9643]

Your statistics are bullshit. The percentage of HIV cases that are female is far below 50%. Here are the CDC figures:

Statistics Overview Statistics Center HIV AIDS CDC

Male-to-male sexual contact 30,689
Injection drug use 1,942
Male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use 1,270
Heterosexual contact 3,887

Note: heterosexual contact includes female to male transmission. Although the odds of such a thing occurring are lower than your chances of being hit by a meteorite, people lie about it, and the CDC does nothing to check the accuracy of what people claim. So at best the ration of male to female HIV cases looks like this:

(3,997 + 1,942) / (3,997 + 1,942) + (30,689 + 1270) = 5939 / (5939 + 31,959) =
5939/37898 = = 15.7%

Note: all the injection drug use cases were attributed to females when exactly the opposite is more likely to be the case.

In other words, you're full of shit and making things up.

My states are dead on. As surely you realize that HIV exists outside the US.

Surely you do.

Of what relevance are cases outside the united states?

In a discussion of if HIV is a 'gay disease', the fact that most of its victims are women and children would tend to be immediately relevant.

If not, why not?

In this country, that would be a lie. We aren't discussing Africa. You're attempt to include it is just a way of lying.

The claim wasn't 'in this country, HIV is a gay disease'. It was merely 'HIV is a gay disease'.

Which by your qualification and caveats......you clearly recognize is hapless bullshit.

It is a gay disease in this country, which is all that matters. It's probably also a gay disease in Africa, but you can't believe any statistics that come out of that country.

 

[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.

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

Sure. But they would be the hetero parents.

 

[bripat9643]

Wow @ that spin ^^^

The best part of catching these horrible people in a lie is when they fight like a hooked fish to deny it.

Yes, that was incredibly clever of you, catching me in that. Very subtle, I never saw it coming

I wasn't trying to 'catch' you doing anything. You instigated it by trying to attack me for posting something that was true.

If he's called the HHS unconstitutional and demanded it be eliminated.....and the CDC is part of the HHS, then yes. What you posted was true.

I've invited him to tell us why the CDC is constitutional vs. all the other agencies.

It isn't constitutional. Who said it was?

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Really? I had two kids with no heterosexuals involved and three more only with straight eggs. The sperm and oven were gay.

 

[Syriusly]

Our children's birth certificates prove you wrong. They'll tell you themselves how wrong you are.

Really? Who does it list as the biological father of the child?

It does not list one. Parent One: me Parent Two: my wife

ROFL! In other words, it's a fraud. How can both of you possibly the child's biological parents?

You live in a world of make believe.

Bob and Dolores Hope- parents with their children.


Yet their children have none of the Hope's genes

How is this possible?
Does this mean that those children were lying when they called Dolores Hope 'Mother'......

Stay tuned for the next episode of "Responses to Stupid things Bigots Say about Parents"

Puhleeze. This tactic is stupid, even for you. Those are not her children. That's the end of the discussion. "Adopted child" is not the same as "your child."

Yeah- I am sure that the Hope's would have been surprised to find out that a bigot like you doesn't think that their adopted children were not 'their child'.

Stay tuned for the next episode of "Responses to Stupid Things Bigots Say about Parents"

Coming up "Bigots tell us how adopted children are not real children"

 

[Skylar]

My states are dead on. As surely you realize that HIV exists outside the US.

Surely you do.

Of what relevance are cases outside the united states?

In a discussion of if HIV is a 'gay disease', the fact that most of its victims are women and children would tend to be immediately relevant.

If not, why not?

In this country, that would be a lie. We aren't discussing Africa. You're attempt to include it is just a way of lying.

The claim wasn't 'in this country, HIV is a gay disease'. It was merely 'HIV is a gay disease'.

Which by your qualification and caveats......you clearly recognize is hapless bullshit.

It is a gay disease in this country, which is all that matters. It's probably also a gay disease in Africa, but you can't believe any statistics that come out of that country.

3 million children with HIV and AIDS matter, Brit. No matter what you say. 17 million women with HIV/AIDS matter.

No matter what you say.

And you've conceded the point, having to offer exceptions, qualification and caveats to the hapless bullshit I've already disproven.

Remember that.

 

[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.

Wow...you should be happy I guess that every screw has a nut. Congratulations!

What "point" have you been trying to make? Kaz didn't make one beyond "how come gays should get what I get?".

The point as you just illustrated. Pro-homo agenda is completely devoid of logic.
The concern was very concisely and explicitly laid out in the OP.

 

[bripat9643]

Really? Who does it list as the biological father of the child?

It does not list one. Parent One: me Parent Two: my wife

ROFL! In other words, it's a fraud. How can both of you possibly the child's biological parents?

You live in a world of make believe.

Bob and Dolores Hope- parents with their children.


Yet their children have none of the Hope's genes

How is this possible?
Does this mean that those children were lying when they called Dolores Hope 'Mother'......

Stay tuned for the next episode of "Responses to Stupid things Bigots Say about Parents"

Puhleeze. This tactic is stupid, even for you. Those are not her children. That's the end of the discussion. "Adopted child" is not the same as "your child."

Yeah- I am sure that the Hope's would have been surprised to find out that a bigot like you doesn't think that their adopted children were not 'their child'.

Stay tuned for the next episode of "Responses to Stupid Things Bigots Say about Parents"

Coming up "Bigots tell us how adopted children are not real children"

No, they wouldn't be surprised at all. That's why they tell people the children are adopted. What people say to protect the feelings of others often has nothing to do with the truth.

 

[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.

Really? I had two kids with no heterosexuals involved and three more only with straight eggs. The sperm and oven were gay.

The process that results in those pregnancies was purely hetero. What is so difficult to understand?
What's more, it appears you very cruelly have deprived children the very natural right of the opportunity to be raised by their actual parents. You are a cruel, selfish neocon.

 

[Syriusly]

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 ....

Once again:

Government marriage: Bob and Dolores Hope with their adopted children.

So should the Hope's have been denied 'the concept of government marriage'?

Or is that just a rationalization for discrimination against gays?

 

[Syriusly]

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?

No one has made any tax cuts for gay sex or straight sex or even for you jerking off in this thread.

 

[bripat9643]

Of what relevance are cases outside the united states?

In a discussion of if HIV is a 'gay disease', the fact that most of its victims are women and children would tend to be immediately relevant.

If not, why not?

In this country, that would be a lie. We aren't discussing Africa. You're attempt to include it is just a way of lying.

The claim wasn't 'in this country, HIV is a gay disease'. It was merely 'HIV is a gay disease'.

Which by your qualification and caveats......you clearly recognize is hapless bullshit.

It is a gay disease in this country, which is all that matters. It's probably also a gay disease in Africa, but you can't believe any statistics that come out of that country.

3 million children with HIV and AIDS matter, Brit. No matter what you say. 17 million women with HIV/AIDS matter.

No matter what you say.

Nope, they don't matter a bit to people in this country. I don't worry about HIV statistics in Africa when I'm deciding whether to have sex with someone. Nobody does.

And you've conceded the point, having to offer exceptions, qualification and caveats to the hapless bullshit I've already disproven.

Remember that.

I conceded nothing, queer. I exposed your attempt to lie about the facts.

 

[Seawytch]

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

Biology has nothing to do with parenting.

My wife and I made sure to have sex before inseminating...they say it helps the spermies...even gay ones like we used.

 

[Skylar]

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 ....

Once again:

Government marriage: Bob and Dolores Hope with their adopted children.

View attachment 41488

So should the Hope's have been denied 'the concept of government marriage'?

Or is that just a rationalization for discrimination against gays?

Its funny how horridly anti-adoption that conservatives have become, isn't it?

 

[Syriusly]

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.

You mean you have been demanding discrimination against homosexual couples for years so you can save money?

Yes you have.

 

[Faun]

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

He doesn't have to confirm or deny it. The only one you snared in your "trap" is you. You [once again] affirmed yourself as the pathological liar the forum has learned you to be.

So when you put words in my mouth all the time I didn't say, don't think and didn't mean, that's OK, you don't need to prove anything. Here's one I keep asking you all the time. You keep calling me "right." I keep asking you for views I have that are "right" and not "libertarian." You ignore it completely. So does Skylar, Syriously, Bodedica, NYCarbineer and the rest of you leftist who's who of moon bats.

When I say he thinks the left wing view like he does on every other issue and he won't deny it, I should go research it anyway.

Got it. Here's a Twinkie, you can go play now

What words have I falsely ascribed to you?

I answered that in the post you responded to, dumb ass

No, you posed a false premise as a question. You ask for a position where you are rightwing but not libertarian as though the two are mutually exclusive; as though you can't be a rightie because you consider yourself a libertarian. They're not. Many libertarians are rightwing and many are leftwing.