Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[Skylar]

Gays have kids

Not gay couples, the concept of government marriage

Now you're railing against government marriage....not gay marriage?

Well that was easy.

Yes, I'm against all government marriage. As for the rest, let me know when you can be coherent

Then your gay marriage 'procreation' bullshit has been abandoned. Good riddance. It was a foolish argument to begin with.

As for you being against all government marriage.....so what? We don't define our laws based on how you feel. You're nobody.

Still no answer to the actual question, why the rest of us should pay for it. I don't give a shit what they do, but don't ask me to fund it. Then it becomes my business

So a tax cut is you 'paying for something'?

Say yes, and I'll use that against you in other debates. Say no and render your entire argument moot.

Pick one.

 

[kaz]

You can call yourself whatever you want

She can call herself what she is. You disagree. So what?

Again, Kaz.....you're gloriously irrelevant to anyone else's marriage. You define nothing. The only relevant standard is that of the law. And it recognizes Sea's marriage as valid.

And there's not a thing you can do about it.

I know you can only blow the hot air that inflates your ego, but I didn't object to any of that. I asked why the rest of us should pay for it. Any answer to the actual question?

And yet you're still gloriously irrelevant to anyone else's marriage. Your opinion means exactly nothing.

Sea's opinion on the other hand is crucial. The law's findings are vital. And they both contradict you.

So....why would I give a shit what you imagine about a topic that you have no relevance to?

You still don't grasp what a message board is. You think it's a chance to unload the vacuous output of your massive ego while telling everyone else to STFU because we don't agree with you

No, that's you. I haven't told anyone to shut up. I rather enjoy forcing you to demolish your own credibility by making you defend lies. Or by pointing out the horrendous holes in your absurd logic. Such as your silly little assumptions that you define anything in Sea's marriage.

You don't. You're irrelevant to her or anyone else's marriage with a degree of perfection that borders on the mathematical. You simply don't matter. You decide nothing, you define nothing. Sea and the law do both.

While you remain nobody. Get used to the idea. There's absolutely nothing you can do about it.

I am doing what I can do about it, speaking. I'd say sorry that offends you, but I'm not

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I bet you guys if you create a few more WHINEY ASS BITCHY GAY THREADS you'll change some hearts & minds.....or not

The whiny, bitchy guy is you, old fart. Here's a thought, don't click on links you aren't interested in. The obvious, what a concept...

I'm very interested in teaching MORONS not to give our political enemies ammo or cover for their bullshit. Sadly you're too fucking stupid to see your own mistake.

So your example is to run into a clearly marked thread and scream to stop discussing it because you aren't interested? I'm not seeing that as a more effective solution. You should watch some hottie girl gay sex, it might calm you down. It's worth watching

How many times are you going to mistake me calling you a complete moron for disinterest?

Derp derp derp

 

[Skylar]

It's really gonna suck for them when the Supreme Court rules that same-sex marriage is Constitutional.

It will suck for everyone but the queers

Since it won't affect anyone but homosexuals, other than your teeny tiny 'ego' being offended, it won't suck for anyone.

Just ask the baker who had to pay a $135,000 fine whether it sucks.

That had nothing to do with legal marriage- Bakers need to follow the law like everyone else- yeah it does suck to be those who dont' want to follow the law.

It had everything to do with legal marriage. Do you think the queers would have sued the baker for not baking them a wedding cake if gay marriage was illegal in the state? First the gays got a liberal judge to overturn the law. Then they sued anyone who dared to decline catering to their fetish. The later was an immediate consequence of the former.

Brit.......44 of 46 rulings isn't an errant 'liberal judge'. Its damn near judicial consensus with 95% of the rulings on one side and you on the other.

 

[kaz]

Not gay couples, the concept of government marriage

Now you're railing against government marriage....not gay marriage?

Well that was easy.

Yes, I'm against all government marriage. As for the rest, let me know when you can be coherent

Then your gay marriage 'procreation' bullshit has been abandoned. Good riddance. It was a foolish argument to begin with.

As for you being against all government marriage.....so what? We don't define our laws based on how you feel. You're nobody.

Still no answer to the actual question, why the rest of us should pay for it. I don't give a shit what they do, but don't ask me to fund it. Then it becomes my business

So a tax cut is you 'paying for something'?

Say yes, and I'll use that against you in other debates. Say no and render your entire argument moot.

Pick one.

Yes, I'm paying for gay fucking. Here's the problem with your claim you will "use it against (me)." I oppose most government spending. You leftists want the government, you just don't want to pay for it. You can't escape that

 

[kaz]

I bet you guys if you create a few more WHINEY ASS BITCHY GAY THREADS you'll change some hearts & minds.....or not

The whiny, bitchy guy is you, old fart. Here's a thought, don't click on links you aren't interested in. The obvious, what a concept...

I'm very interested in teaching MORONS not to give our political enemies ammo or cover for their bullshit. Sadly you're too fucking stupid to see your own mistake.

So your example is to run into a clearly marked thread and scream to stop discussing it because you aren't interested? I'm not seeing that as a more effective solution. You should watch some hottie girl gay sex, it might calm you down. It's worth watching

How many times are you going to mistake me calling you a complete moron for disinterest?

Derp derp derp

OK, fair enough. Riddle me this, batman. Why is your not wanting to discuss it an encumbrance on me?

 

[Skylar]

She can call herself what she is. You disagree. So what?

Again, Kaz.....you're gloriously irrelevant to anyone else's marriage. You define nothing. The only relevant standard is that of the law. And it recognizes Sea's marriage as valid.

And there's not a thing you can do about it.

I know you can only blow the hot air that inflates your ego, but I didn't object to any of that. I asked why the rest of us should pay for it. Any answer to the actual question?

And yet you're still gloriously irrelevant to anyone else's marriage. Your opinion means exactly nothing.

Sea's opinion on the other hand is crucial. The law's findings are vital. And they both contradict you.

So....why would I give a shit what you imagine about a topic that you have no relevance to?

You still don't grasp what a message board is. You think it's a chance to unload the vacuous output of your massive ego while telling everyone else to STFU because we don't agree with you

No, that's you. I haven't told anyone to shut up. I rather enjoy forcing you to demolish your own credibility by making you defend lies. Or by pointing out the horrendous holes in your absurd logic. Such as your silly little assumptions that you define anything in Sea's marriage.

You don't. You're irrelevant to her or anyone else's marriage with a degree of perfection that borders on the mathematical. You simply don't matter. You decide nothing, you define nothing. Sea and the law do both.

While you remain nobody. Get used to the idea. There's absolutely nothing you can do about it.

I am doing what I can do about it, speaking. I'd say sorry that offends you, but I'm not

Which has no relevance to anyone's marriage. As you citing you is meaningless.

And we both know it.

 

[kaz]

It will suck for everyone but the queers

Since it won't affect anyone but homosexuals, other than your teeny tiny 'ego' being offended, it won't suck for anyone.

Just ask the baker who had to pay a $135,000 fine whether it sucks.

That had nothing to do with legal marriage- Bakers need to follow the law like everyone else- yeah it does suck to be those who dont' want to follow the law.

It had everything to do with legal marriage. Do you think the queers would have sued the baker for not baking them a wedding cake if gay marriage was illegal in the state? First the gays got a liberal judge to overturn the law. Then they sued anyone who dared to decline catering to their fetish. The later was an immediate consequence of the former.

Brit.......44 of 46 rulings isn't an errant 'liberal judge'. Its damn near judicial consensus with 95% of the rulings on one side and you on the other.

Government judges want the government to have more power! Wow, what an insight! You sir, have struck the obvious. Well done, that's a clear advancement for you

 

[oldernwiser]

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

Ummm... That's quite a stretch wouldn't you say? Taxpayers don't subsidize ANY marriage - and if you can show they do, I'll get married tomorrow.

You get a tax rate reduction, government sure as hell doesn't take the money out of the budget and not spend it. So yeah, someone else is paying for it. Or did you think government money appears by magic?

That's ridiculous. No one pays for it - otherwise Republicans would have a hard time defending traditional marriage.

 

[kaz]

I know you can only blow the hot air that inflates your ego, but I didn't object to any of that. I asked why the rest of us should pay for it. Any answer to the actual question?

And yet you're still gloriously irrelevant to anyone else's marriage. Your opinion means exactly nothing.

Sea's opinion on the other hand is crucial. The law's findings are vital. And they both contradict you.

So....why would I give a shit what you imagine about a topic that you have no relevance to?

You still don't grasp what a message board is. You think it's a chance to unload the vacuous output of your massive ego while telling everyone else to STFU because we don't agree with you

No, that's you. I haven't told anyone to shut up. I rather enjoy forcing you to demolish your own credibility by making you defend lies. Or by pointing out the horrendous holes in your absurd logic. Such as your silly little assumptions that you define anything in Sea's marriage.

You don't. You're irrelevant to her or anyone else's marriage with a degree of perfection that borders on the mathematical. You simply don't matter. You decide nothing, you define nothing. Sea and the law do both.

While you remain nobody. Get used to the idea. There's absolutely nothing you can do about it.

I am doing what I can do about it, speaking. I'd say sorry that offends you, but I'm not

Which has no relevance to anyone's marriage. As you citing you is meaningless.

And we both know it.

Wrong, what free men think is far more important than what government drone judges and their sycophants like you think

 

[kaz]

You get a tax rate reduction, government sure as hell doesn't take the money out of the budget and not spend it. So yeah, someone else is paying for it. Or did you think government money appears by magic?

That's ridiculous. No one pays for it - otherwise Republicans would have a hard time defending traditional marriage.

I'll concede if you show me the spending cuts that come when gays get a piece of paper that lowers their taxes. If that's the case, no one is paying for it. Problem is, I've never seen the spending cuts that go with the tax cuts. Your turn, show me that

 

[Skylar]

Now you're railing against government marriage....not gay marriage?

Well that was easy.

Yes, I'm against all government marriage. As for the rest, let me know when you can be coherent

Then your gay marriage 'procreation' bullshit has been abandoned. Good riddance. It was a foolish argument to begin with.

As for you being against all government marriage.....so what? We don't define our laws based on how you feel. You're nobody.

Still no answer to the actual question, why the rest of us should pay for it. I don't give a shit what they do, but don't ask me to fund it. Then it becomes my business

So a tax cut is you 'paying for something'?

Say yes, and I'll use that against you in other debates. Say no and render your entire argument moot.

Pick one.

Yes, I'm paying for gay fucking.

No you're not. Marriage and fucking aren't the same thing. And its the former that has benefits from the government. The latter usually creates its own.

Here's the problem with your claim you will "use it against (me)." I oppose most government spending. You leftists want the government, you just don't want to pay for it. You can't escape that

Any time someone characterizes a tax cut for the wealthy as 'costing me money', you can't say shit. As you've already agreed with the premise.

In any debate. I've already bookmarked this thread. Thank you!

 

[bripat9643]

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

It's really gonna suck for them when the Supreme Court rules that same-sex marriage is Constitutional.

It will suck for everyone but the queers

Since it won't affect anyone but homosexuals, other than your teeny tiny 'ego' being offended, it won't suck for anyone.

Just ask the baker who had to pay a $135,000 fine whether it sucks.

That had nothing to do with legal marriage- Bakers need to follow the law like everyone else- yeah it does suck to be those who dont' want to follow the law.

The law wouldn't exist if it wasn't for legalized gay marriage, idiot.

Yeah, it sure sucked when those Jews in Nazi Germany had to follow the law that said they had to make their business a target for vandalism.

 

[GreenBean]

Two major problems with that argument.

First, gays have kids

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ever heard of Bi-sexual ? - it's a half fag who had sodomy with another fag and transmitted it to an innocent woman . So far as the 10% children -"inter generational intimacy" in the left wing lexicon - child molestation in the right wing vocabulary would explain some of it , being born to an infected mother [who more than likely was infected by a half fag.] explains more.

 

[Skylar]

And yet you're still gloriously irrelevant to anyone else's marriage. Your opinion means exactly nothing.

Sea's opinion on the other hand is crucial. The law's findings are vital. And they both contradict you.

So....why would I give a shit what you imagine about a topic that you have no relevance to?

You still don't grasp what a message board is. You think it's a chance to unload the vacuous output of your massive ego while telling everyone else to STFU because we don't agree with you

No, that's you. I haven't told anyone to shut up. I rather enjoy forcing you to demolish your own credibility by making you defend lies. Or by pointing out the horrendous holes in your absurd logic. Such as your silly little assumptions that you define anything in Sea's marriage.

You don't. You're irrelevant to her or anyone else's marriage with a degree of perfection that borders on the mathematical. You simply don't matter. You decide nothing, you define nothing. Sea and the law do both.

While you remain nobody. Get used to the idea. There's absolutely nothing you can do about it.

I am doing what I can do about it, speaking. I'd say sorry that offends you, but I'm not

Which has no relevance to anyone's marriage. As you citing you is meaningless.

And we both know it.

Wrong, what free men think is far more important than what government drone judges and their sycophants like you think

You can think whatever you want. But your thoughts and your feelings are irrelevant to anyone else's marriage. You don't define Sea's marriage. You don't decide anything about it. She and the law do.

And if you think the kind of ranting you and your ilk are doing against gays is having an effect on 'freemen', you're right. But in opposite to your hateful vitriol against same sex families:

The higher the support goes, the more rabid you and your ilk get. Which only pushes folks toward supporting gay marriage. Its a beautiful cycle.

 

[Skylar]

Two major problems with that argument.

First, gays have kids

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ever heard of Bi-sexual ? - it's a half fag who had sodomy with another fag and transmitted it to an innocent woman . So far as the 10% children -"inter generational intimacy" in the left wing lexicon - child molestation in the right wing vocabulary would explain some of it , being born to an infected mother [who more than likely was infected by a half fag.] explains more.

Irrelevant to the standard already set....where infections define whose disease it is.

Women and children make up a clear majority of HIV cases. Even if every single man on earth who has HIV is gay (which, of course, they're not) the 'HIV is a gay disease' narrative is still hapless, ignorant bullshit.

Which apparently you've gobbled down.

 

[Skylar]

It's really gonna suck for them when the Supreme Court rules that same-sex marriage is Constitutional.

It will suck for everyone but the queers

Since it won't affect anyone but homosexuals, other than your teeny tiny 'ego' being offended, it won't suck for anyone.

Just ask the baker who had to pay a $135,000 fine whether it sucks.

That had nothing to do with legal marriage- Bakers need to follow the law like everyone else- yeah it does suck to be those who dont' want to follow the law.

The law wouldn't exist if it wasn't for legalized gay marriage, idiot.

Yeah, it sure sucked when those Jews in Nazi Germany had to follow the law that said they had to make their business a target for vandalism.

Right to Godwin's law, huh.

You do realize that the Nazi's didn't legalize gay marriage, right? They took the position you did.

 

[oldernwiser]

You get a tax rate reduction, government sure as hell doesn't take the money out of the budget and not spend it. So yeah, someone else is paying for it. Or did you think government money appears by magic?

That's ridiculous. No one pays for it - otherwise Republicans would have a hard time defending traditional marriage.

I'll concede if you show me the spending cuts that come when gays get a piece of paper that lowers their taxes. If that's the case, no one is paying for it. Problem is, I've never seen the spending cuts that go with the tax cuts. Your turn, show me that

You'll first have to show that marriage actually LOWERS taxes. And if you owe less, no one picks up what you don't pay - that's the stupid part.

As to the spending cuts that went with tax cuts, you only have to look back to the last budget "deal" - remember the one that shutdown the government? It slashed a load of spending and included tax cuts for a private railroad so they could maintain their tracks, NASCAR so they could build a new track, and Goldman-Sachs ($1.1 Billion) so they could replace an office building.

 

[bripat9643]

It will suck for everyone but the queers

Since it won't affect anyone but homosexuals, other than your teeny tiny 'ego' being offended, it won't suck for anyone.

Just ask the baker who had to pay a $135,000 fine whether it sucks.

That had nothing to do with legal marriage- Bakers need to follow the law like everyone else- yeah it does suck to be those who dont' want to follow the law.

The law wouldn't exist if it wasn't for legalized gay marriage, idiot.

Yeah, it sure sucked when those Jews in Nazi Germany had to follow the law that said they had to make their business a target for vandalism.

Right to Godwin's law, huh.

You do realize that the Nazi's didn't legalize gay marriage, right? They took the position you did.

As I have explained many times, Godwin's law is just a propaganda technique to shield liberals from the truth.

 

[bripat9643]

Two major problems with that argument.

First, gays have kids

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ever heard of Bi-sexual ? - it's a half fag who had sodomy with another fag and transmitted it to an innocent woman . So far as the 10% children -"inter generational intimacy" in the left wing lexicon - child molestation in the right wing vocabulary would explain some of it , being born to an infected mother [who more than likely was infected by a half fag.] explains more.

Irrelevant to the standard already set....where infections define whose disease it is.

Women and children make up a clear majority of HIV cases. Even if every single man on earth who has HIV is gay (which, of course, they're not) the 'HIV is a gay disease' narrative is still hapless, ignorant bullshit.

Which apparently you've gobbled down.

As I already pointed out with CDC statistics, women and children are a small fraction of HIV cases in this country.