Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[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

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

Compare married rates with single rates

 

[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."

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.

Who is "we?"

BTW, I admit you did get syriously to grasp I was screwing with him on purpose.

Though the rest of your zombie friends are doing exactly as I said. You're a homophobe, you're a homophobe, you're a homophobe. Fine, I'm a homophobe. AHA, I knew it!!!!!

Doesn't it make you wonder about your cause when that many people that stupid are on your side? Bodecea, Skylar, Faun, NYCarbineer, the list goes on. It should bother you

 

[Seawytch]

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

Completely relevant since it was brought up.

I'm sorry, parenting and paperwork? What? You'll have to have the rest of that conversation outside your head if you want us to participate.

Marriage is completely critical to many gay families and society equates marriage with the civil marriage "concept" you're still in (gotta have that validation, right?)

 

[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?

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

If only the biological parents of children would stop abandoning their children- maybe we wouldn't have to worry about finding enough parents willing to adopt them all.

100,000 children a year up for adoption

33,000 of them will wait 3 or more years.

Some will age out of the system without any families at all.

But the biggest worry for the homophobes is not the biological parents abandoning their children- but preventing parents who want to take up the slack for those losers- if they happen to be gay.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Who is "we?"

You and the other anti gay bigot that want to apply a standard to gays that does not apply to straights.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

I simply tell the truth about HIV. In this country it's a gay disease. I can't help it of queers find the truth offensive.

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.

HIV in Africa is irrelevant to Americans because we live here, not in Africa. It's as simple as that.

 

[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

Completely relevant since it was brought up.

I'm sorry, parenting and paperwork? What? You'll have to have the rest of that conversation outside your head if you want us to participate.

Marriage is completely critical to many gay families and society equates marriage with the civil marriage "concept" you're still in (gotta have that validation, right?)

Without being able to file taxes together and evade the death tax you wouldn't stay together?

 

[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.

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.

The anti-homo agenda is based purely upon bigotry- and wanting to deny gays the same government bennies you get.

You want gay couples to pay for your bennies.

 

[kaz]

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.

Who is "we?"

You and the other anti gay bigot that want to apply a standard to gays that does not apply to straights.

I don't give a shit what sex you have, what does that have to do with the discussion?

 

[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.

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.

Hmmm, no they wouldn't.

Do you often ask children about complex medical issues?

 

[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.

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.

The anti-homo agenda is based purely upon bigotry- and wanting to deny gays the same government bennies you get.

You want gay couples to pay for your bennies.

LOL, that was pretty good for you

 

[kaz]

But the biggest worry for the homophobes is not the biological parents abandoning their children- but preventing parents who want to take up the slack for those losers- if they happen to be gay.

Why would you want a sexual deviant to adopt a child under any circumstances?

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Who is "we?"

BTW, I admit you did get syriously to grasp I was screwing with him on purpose.

Though the rest of your zombie friends are doing exactly as I said. You're a homophobe, you're a homophobe, you're a homophobe. Fine, I'm a homophobe. AHA, I knew it!!!!!

Doesn't it make you wonder about your cause when that many people that stupid are on your side? Bodecea, Skylar, Faun, NYCarbineer, the list goes on. It should bother you

You sure have an inflated ego that they should KNOW you're not a garden variety anti gay bigot and that they should all have been paying such close attention to you.

So, stop deflecting and address the point about marriage and procreation.

 

[Faun]

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.

Beyond stupid. Even for you.

But thanks for exposing how the rightard brain functions.

Only a lying queer would claim the simple truth is stupid.

Only a brain-dead queer would say what you said.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Who is "we?"

BTW, I admit you did get syriously to grasp I was screwing with him on purpose.

Though the rest of your zombie friends are doing exactly as I said. You're a homophobe, you're a homophobe, you're a homophobe. Fine, I'm a homophobe. AHA, I knew it!!!!!

Doesn't it make you wonder about your cause when that many people that stupid are on your side? Bodecea, Skylar, Faun, NYCarbineer, the list goes on. It should bother you

I think you just listed the alumni of the forum Stupid Hall of Fame!

 

[Syriusly]

Biology has nothing to do with parenting

Marriage is critical to many heterosexual families though, and unfortunately they usually equate marriage with government marriage.t

Marriage is either crucial to families or it is it not crucial to families.

And that is irregardless of whether the parents are straight or gay.

And any marriage that is not 'government marriage' in the United States is no different from being 'boyfriend and girlfriend' or 'close friends' or 'partnership' or 'tennis doubles'

 

[Seawytch]

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

Completely relevant since it was brought up.

I'm sorry, parenting and paperwork? What? You'll have to have the rest of that conversation outside your head if you want us to participate.

Marriage is completely critical to many gay families and society equates marriage with the civil marriage "concept" you're still in (gotta have that validation, right?)

Without being able to file taxes together and evade the death tax you wouldn't stay together?

Your wife seems to think you and she won't.

 

[Syriusly]

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

Compare married rates with single rates

Are you talking about marriage now- or sex?

Please feel free to let me know what you are mumbling about now.

 

[Syriusly]

But the biggest worry for the homophobes is not the biological parents abandoning their children- but preventing parents who want to take up the slack for those losers- if they happen to be gay.

Why would you want a sexual deviant to adopt a child under any circumstances?

Why would you want to deprive a child, abandoned by his biological parents', a loving family?

 

[Faun]

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."

Great argument for pregnant women to choose abortion over putting children up for adoption. It's always entertaining watching dumbfucks like you speak without the ability to think first.