Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[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.

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

Like I said- just Kaz lying again.

Which is pretty redundant.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

Marriage exists to protect mothers and children. In the case of the Hopes, it serves that purpose. In the cause of queers it doesn't.

Queers should not be allowed to adopt unless there are no suitable heterosexual couples available.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

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?

I'm not a conservative and I'm not anti-adoption. This is about contrived adoptions. Intentionally creating kids to be deprived of their actual parents. Way different from necessary adoption.

 

[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.

Homosexuals of course have children.

Just like Bob Hope and his wife had children.

What is it with the anti-family far right that somehow doesn't think that adoptive parents are real parents?

 

[Seawytch]

You're holding straights to one standard and gays to another.

It's called trying to justify anti gay bigotry. The "tyrannical activist judges" see through it to the underlying animus.

 

[Skylar]

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

My every citation was 100% accurate, and you know it. I addressed the claim that was made, that HIV is a gay disease. Which is obvious horseshit.

Its you that had to re-imagine the claim to include 'in this country'. And all those exceptions and caveats and imaginary additions that you had to tack on are your concession.

HIV is a heterosexual disease, with its primary method of transmission being heterosexual sex, and most of its victims being women and children.

And yes, 3.3 million children and 17 million women matter. Obviously.

 

[Iceweasel]

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

Because feelings have become more important than anything else. Gays want the power of government to sell the belief that same sex relations is equivalent to opposite sex relations. Any grade schooler not already brainwashed knows better. It's how a species exists. I think it may be even bigger than that. If you can get a population to believe that you can get them to believe anything, the hard part is done, their minds are yours for the shaping.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

Marriage exists to protect mothers and children..

You keep moving your goal posts to rationalyze why gay couples are excluded from marriage- first you say its because they can't exchange DNA- now its to 'protect mothers' and children'- but why don't you want to protect mothers or children if the mothers are lesbians?

Really you can sum up your opposition to : You hate gays and want to discriminate against them.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

I'm not a conservative and I'm not anti-adoption. This is about contrived adoptions. Intentionally creating kids to be deprived of their actual parents. Way different from necessary adoption.

And this is different from how heterosexuals that use sperm donations and surrogacy how?

They are creating children to be 'intentionally deprived of their 'actual parents'- at least by your contrived definition of 'actual parent"

 

[RKMBrown]

Correction... Democrats, Conservatives, and Independents will all hang them on it. Again democrats don't own the issue of liberty.

Democrats don't own the issue. But they do benefit the most from it. As the anti-gay marriage stance of the GOP hurts conservatives.

Why do democrats benefit from gay marriage? Huh? How is gay marriage a democrat function? The only way democrats can benefit from gay marriage is by stretching out the length of time it takes for gay marriage as a civil right to be the law of the land. Once the Gay marriage issue is settled the gays can go back to being supporters of productive policies vs things like hand-out programs designed to break the bank.

Democrats benefit because gay marriage is an issue they can beat Republicans over the head with and show how out of touch with society they are

The best outcome for Republicans is for this issue to go away

Nah the best outcome for republicans is kicking the religious authoritarians out of party leadership positions.

Yo duke - I'm 100% Republican Conservative and I'm an Agnostic. Stop stereotyping little fella . I bet you think all Blacks like fried chicken and wartymelon, all Latinos carry knives, and gays are just as sane as normal people ..

Uhmmm... I was the one saying don't stereo-type the pubs.. RW is the guy burying the pubs by singling out the religious authoritarian wing of the party.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

Especially since almost all children in the United States available for adoption, were abandoned by their heterosexual, biological parents.

And there are a lot of children abandoned waiting for adoption- 100,000 a year.

 

[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?".

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.

That was a non answer if I ever saw one.

What logic is it devoid OF? Why has your "logic" consistently lost in a court of LAW?

The "concern" laid out if the OP is a false premise. Straights are not required to have children to be married and get tax breaks regardless. Marriage is not required for children (children gays DO have) and you get tax breaks for them regardless.

Why would you apply a standard to gays that you don't apply to straights?

 

[RKMBrown]

No, I don't underestimate the ability of the whacked out authoritarian religious right to screw up this country and the rest of the world for that matter. Nor do I underestimate the ability of the whacked out authoritarian marxist pos democrats who are using political polls to gain power over us all and screw up the country and the rest of the world.

Citing the fact that the democratic party is with the majority of the country in support of same sex marriage isn't 'whacked out authoritarian marxism'.

Its just a fact.

There are more issues than gay marriage.

There are....but I find that Republican/Conservative stand on gay marriage to be a deal breaker for me....atm.

Not a good reason to go Marxist. There are other parties.

See this is where you lose me.

Maybe you are being hyperbolic- maybe you aren't.

There are 'other' parties- the Democratic Party, the Libertarian- I don't know anyone who is voting Marxist.

From each according to their abilities to each according to their needs. Did Obama say that or Marx? I forget.

 

[RKMBrown]

There are....but I find that Republican/Conservative stand on gay marriage to be a deal breaker for me....atm.

It will reach 80% before Republicans admit that they really supported it all along and blame the left wing media

I eagerly await the day where a gray haired Ted Cruz longingly recounts his participation in SF Gay Pride in support of gay marriage.

Its not that I "opposed" gay marriage, I just though it was a states issue

Same excuse they used on Civil Rights

It was the democrats that opposed civil rights for blacks. The democrats were the party of the kkk. Thats when the democrats started putting on republican hats to turn the republican party into racist religious whacks. Try to keep up.

Regardless of which political party southern racists belong to, they have always been primarily Conservative.

Nonsense.

 

[Faun]

Exactly. Kaz lied his ass off

Yet you keep confirming I am correct...

Nope, he keeps confirming you lied as you attributed a statement to him which he apparently didn't make.

Well, that would be a lie as I never said he made the "statement," I said it's what he thinks

Thanks, kaz!

I claim you're a pathological liar who can't refrain from lying, and here you do me the favor of lying again.

When you deny you claim he said that, but that you said he thought that -- you are once again, lying.....

"you call the British PM and British intelligence liars..." - a pathological liar ​

 

[Skylar]

You're holding straights to one standard and gays to another.

It's called trying to justify anti gay bigotry. The "tyrannical activist judges" see through it to the underlying animus.

These poor hapless bigots don't seem to understand that their ridiculously inconsisent logic and hateful rhetoric doesn't convince anyone who doesn't already agree with them.

For those who don't......it only helps add to the growing consensus on gay marriage in this country:

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Sixty percent of Americans now support same-sex marriage, as the Supreme Court prepares to rule on its constitutionality next month. This is up from 55% last year and is the highest Gallup has found on the question since it was first asked in 1996.

Record-High 60 of Americans Support Same-Sex Marriage

The higher this number becomes, the more desperate and hateful their narratives. Which only pushes more people away and toward support of gay marriage.

Its a lovely upward cycle.

 

[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.

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.

So you think that every child born from sperm donation and egg donation is cruelly deprived?

I think they might disagree with you.

What a cruel, anti-family bigot.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Homosexuals of course have children.

Just like Bob Hope and his wife had children.

What is it with the anti-family far right that somehow doesn't think that adoptive parents are real parents?

Nope, Bob Hope and his wife didn't have children. They adopted. To have children means to conceive and give birth to them.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

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

And here we have it- just pure bigotry.

Wouldn't be any different if you speaking about Jews or blacks or Asians or Germans- just pure unadulterated bigotry- and it fuels all of your hystrionic antigay rants.

How sad to live a life of hate like you do.

 

[kaz]

You said I called the British PM and British Intelligence liars

Exactly, you worship Miriam, but you call the British Intelligence liars when they did the same thing. You can't deny it, and you don't