Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[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.

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?

What does what you responded to have to do with the liars paradox?

 

[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.

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?

What you call straight is heterosexual. All pregnancies are a result of heterosexuality even if the parents have homosexual proclivities. That is the logic. The real parents of every human in history have been a specific singular man and specific singular woman and created through that hetero circumstance. Homos want to generate pregnancy through the very necessary heterosexuality and then force the offspring into adoption into homo circumstances and pretend they are the parents. That is an absolutely cruel thing to do to a child. And extremely selfish.

 

[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.

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

You were married to a gay man?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Nope. My dislike for queers is based on their behavior in places like this forum. To advance their agenda the lie, dissemble, spew profound irrationality, insult, and attack in the most vicious manner conceivable.

Thoroughly reprehensible human beings.

 

[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?

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

Bob and Dolores Hope had 4 beautiful children- sad you hate adoptive parents as much as you hate gays.

Here is another example of a mother with her beautiful daughter

 

[kaz]

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?

The "concept of government marriage" doesn't require proof they will have children. They may or may not.

But gay sex does not ever lead to children, so that is clearly not part of the "concept of government marriage."

You don't lose a baseball game because you don't get a hit on every at bat. But gays in their entirety are batting an O fer

 

[Syriusly]

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 ​

I don't think he is pathological- that implies he can't control his lying. He chooses to lie.

 

[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?

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

Now you are the liar

 

[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?

The "concept of government marriage" doesn't require proof they will have children. They may or may not.

But gay sex does not ever lead to children, so that is clearly not part of the "concept of government marriage."
r

Confirming once again that the claim about procreation is just a rationalization to exclude homosexuals from the marriage you get the benefits from.

You just want gay couples to pay for your marriage bennies.

 

[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.

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.

But...Politichic just said "the left" was losing ground on this...

It's going to go up faster and faster. More people will be comfortable coming out and that equates to increased support for equality. It's really hard to look someone close to you in the face and say "I love you but don't think you deserve the same rights as me."

 

[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.

Now you are the liar

Free free to prove it.

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

 

[kaz]

Biology has nothing to do with parenting

Irrelevant to the discussion. No gays parent because they got government paperwork. Marriage is critical to many heterosexual families though, and unfortunately they usually equate marriage with government marriage. I don't agree, which is specifically why I used the term "concept" of marriage in my original post

 

[kaz]

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

Bam! Proved me right again.

I am actually denying that I am a conservative and asking you for proof from the 20K posts I've written that support your assertion I'm "conservative" and not libertarian.

You ignore it, yet demand proof of something you can't even deny

 

[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.

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.

Bob and Dolores Hope had 4 beautiful children- sad you hate adoptive parents as much as you hate gays.

Here is another example of a mother with her beautiful daughter

They didn't "have" four children. They adopted four children.

The word "have" has two meanings. One is mere possession, as in "I have $5.00." The other meaning is "to conceive and give birth to children." You're deliberately using one meaning when the other meaning is implied.

You're just another sleazy lying queer.

 

[kaz]

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.

Libertarians are not conservatives. Libertarians are social liberals, you can't be a socon and call yourself libertarian. We are also for far smaller use of the military, I want to slash it by 1/3-1/2 and leave the middle east entirely. No, you cannot be "conservative" as well as "libertarian. If you called me a "fiscal conservative" that would be true, but I am not a "conservative." And I am certainly not "right" for the same reason

 

[kaz]

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.

The part in green I actually agree with. We evolved in a world of men and women, it's ideal for a kid to have a parental relationship with one of each, not two of the same, just like two left shoes isn't a replacement for a pair of shoes.

Got to it libbies, this one I mean and I won't say otherwise

 

[Seawytch]

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?

The "concept of government marriage" doesn't require proof they will have children. They may or may not.

But gay sex does not ever lead to children, so that is clearly not part of the "concept of government marriage."

You don't lose a baseball game because you don't get a hit on every at bat. But gays in their entirety are batting an O fer

And it's back to "we don't like the sex you have".

You said it yourself...No proof of children required (prohibited by law actually in some cases. Cousin marriage law in the United States by state - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

You cannot deny civil marriage to a convicted murderer on death row (there are no conjugal visits for death row inmates. Death Row Prisoners Visitation Rights Criminal Law). This was determined by a SCOTUS ruling. Turner v. Safley - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia...further destroying your anti gay argument.

 

[Syriusly]

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

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? Queers always like to include cases in Africa, but conditions there are nothing like the conditions in Western countries. For one thing, how can anyone even trust the statistics coming out of places like that? For another, doctors in Africa often reuse syringes without sterilizing them. There are a host of reasons that African statistics are totally irrelevant.

Counting African cases is just another way that queers lie.

Another demonstration of how the bigots only care about AIDs in order to attack homosexuals.

to Brip- AIDs in Africa is irrelevant- because all he wants is to be able to spew more hate on homosexuals.

What a sad, sad life he lives- consumed by fear and hatred.

 

[kaz]

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?

The "concept of government marriage" doesn't require proof they will have children. They may or may not.

But gay sex does not ever lead to children, so that is clearly not part of the "concept of government marriage."
r

Confirming once again that the claim about procreation is just a rationalization to exclude homosexuals from the marriage you get the benefits from.

You just want gay couples to pay for your marriage bennies.

Wrong

 

[Syriusly]

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.

In the USA, HIV is a gay disease. All the claims queers make about it are lies.

The children and women and straight men here in the United States would be surprised to hear that.