Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[Faun]

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.

It certainly is equal legally. The 14th Amendment's equal protection clause does not apply to heterosexuals only.

Nope, they have the same right as everyone else, it certainly doesn't

You're too stupid for words. Everyone else can legally marry the person they love and hope to spend the rest of their life together. Gays can't.

There's a solution to that. The legislature. The courts are for when people are being treated differently. Like being black and being forced by government to government marry your own kind. And when you're forced to sit in the back of the bus and use different drinking fountains and bathrooms. Blacks didn't want something different, they were just treated differently. Gays were treated like everyone else.

You are too stupid for words. You think being treated the same as everyone else when you want something different is a job for the courts. It's not, it's a job for the legislature. And as a job for the legislature, my question is, why ... should .... I ... pay ... for ... it? Why do I want to pay gays to fuck their brains out? Go for it, you like anuses, fine by me. But I don't see what right that gives you to reach in my wallet. It doesn't. There is zero reason for me to pay you to fuck a guy the rest of your life

You're a moron. If your rights are denied by the government, you sue the government. You don't sit back and hope the legislature fights for your rights.

 

[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.

Skylar is lying. Women make up nowhere near half the HIV cases in this country.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Nah, that's just more shit you've said, Bri. You've never actually been able to back that up. Even logically, your argument breaks the moment we bring in same sex marriage.

As you and the Nazi's have the same view on gay marriage.

 

[Faun]

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.

You could be right. You point out how he chooses to lie and he agreed with you.

This whole thread is a lie, Einstein. It's mocking you by applying your own standard to you

He said you lied and you agreed. Why would I argue that?

Yes, this thread is mocking you, and you are too stupid to grasp it

You still agreed that you lie. I'm not arguing with you on that.

 

[Skylar]

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.

It certainly is equal legally. The 14th Amendment's equal protection clause does not apply to heterosexuals only.

Nope, they have the same right as everyone else, it certainly doesn't

You're too stupid for words. Everyone else can legally marry the person they love and hope to spend the rest of their life together. Gays can't.

There's a solution to that. The legislature. The courts are for when people are being treated differently. Like being black and being forced by government to government marry your own kind. And when you're forced to sit in the back of the bus and use different drinking fountains and bathrooms. Blacks didn't want something different, they were just treated differently. Gays were treated like everyone else.

You are too stupid for words. You think being treated the same as everyone else when you want something different is a job for the courts. It's not, it's a job for the legislature. And as a job for the legislature, my question is, why ... should .... I ... pay ... for ... it? Why do I want to pay gays to fuck their brains out? Go for it, you like anuses, fine by me. But I don't see what right that gives you to reach in my wallet. It doesn't. There is zero reason for me to pay you to fuck a guy the rest of your life

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.

It certainly is equal legally. The 14th Amendment's equal protection clause does not apply to heterosexuals only.

Nope, they have the same right as everyone else, it certainly doesn't

You're too stupid for words. Everyone else can legally marry the person they love and hope to spend the rest of their life together. Gays can't.

There's a solution to that. The legislature. The courts are for when people are being treated differently. Like being black and being forced by government to government marry your own kind. And when you're forced to sit in the back of the bus and use different drinking fountains and bathrooms. Blacks didn't want something different, they were just treated differently. Gays were treated like everyone else.

You are too stupid for words. You think being treated the same as everyone else when you want something different is a job for the courts. It's not, it's a job for the legislature. And as a job for the legislature, my question is, why ... should .... I ... pay ... for ... it? Why do I want to pay gays to fuck their brains out? Go for it, you like anuses, fine by me. But I don't see what right that gives you to reach in my wallet. It doesn't. There is zero reason for me to pay you to fuck a guy the rest of your life

You're a moron. If your rights are denied by the government, you sue the government. You don't sit back and hope the legislature fights for your rights.

Exactly. Generally speaking rights aren't given. They're taken.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Nah, that's just more shit you've said, Bri. You've never actually been able to back that up. Even logically, your argument breaks the moment we bring in same sex marriage.

As you and the Nazi's have the same view on gay marriage.

You're hysterical

 

[GreenBean]

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?

Skylar : "... So the 'do not perpetuate the species' angle is moot."



Would you care to explain how two fags or two dikes created life all by themselves ... it doesn't happen little fella and the perpetuate the species' angle is not moot

 

[Skylar]

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

You could be right. You point out how he chooses to lie and he agreed with you.

This whole thread is a lie, Einstein. It's mocking you by applying your own standard to you

He said you lied and you agreed. Why would I argue that?

Yes, this thread is mocking you, and you are too stupid to grasp it

You still agreed that you lie. I'm not arguing with you on that.

I'm still waiting for Kaz to show me where I called the British PM and British Intelligence liars.

He can't. He made up the debate and my dialogue for it. And lied his ass off. Which is always amusing when so many of Kaz's arguments rely on us ignoring authoritative, informed sources. And instead believing Kaz.

Um.....why would I believe Kaz when he's demonstrated he lies and has no idea what he's talking about?

I can't think of a single reason.

 

[bripat9643]

It certainly is equal legally. The 14th Amendment's equal protection clause does not apply to heterosexuals only.

Nope, they have the same right as everyone else, it certainly doesn't

You're too stupid for words. Everyone else can legally marry the person they love and hope to spend the rest of their life together. Gays can't.

There's a solution to that. The legislature. The courts are for when people are being treated differently. Like being black and being forced by government to government marry your own kind. And when you're forced to sit in the back of the bus and use different drinking fountains and bathrooms. Blacks didn't want something different, they were just treated differently. Gays were treated like everyone else.

You are too stupid for words. You think being treated the same as everyone else when you want something different is a job for the courts. It's not, it's a job for the legislature. And as a job for the legislature, my question is, why ... should .... I ... pay ... for ... it? Why do I want to pay gays to fuck their brains out? Go for it, you like anuses, fine by me. But I don't see what right that gives you to reach in my wallet. It doesn't. There is zero reason for me to pay you to fuck a guy the rest of your life

It certainly is equal legally. The 14th Amendment's equal protection clause does not apply to heterosexuals only.

Nope, they have the same right as everyone else, it certainly doesn't

You're too stupid for words. Everyone else can legally marry the person they love and hope to spend the rest of their life together. Gays can't.

There's a solution to that. The legislature. The courts are for when people are being treated differently. Like being black and being forced by government to government marry your own kind. And when you're forced to sit in the back of the bus and use different drinking fountains and bathrooms. Blacks didn't want something different, they were just treated differently. Gays were treated like everyone else.

You are too stupid for words. You think being treated the same as everyone else when you want something different is a job for the courts. It's not, it's a job for the legislature. And as a job for the legislature, my question is, why ... should .... I ... pay ... for ... it? Why do I want to pay gays to fuck their brains out? Go for it, you like anuses, fine by me. But I don't see what right that gives you to reach in my wallet. It doesn't. There is zero reason for me to pay you to fuck a guy the rest of your life

You're a moron. If your rights are denied by the government, you sue the government. You don't sit back and hope the legislature fights for your rights.

Exactly. Generally speaking rights aren't given. They're taken.

Wrong. You are born with all the rights you're ever going to have.

 

[Skylar]

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?

Skylar : "... So the 'do not perpetuate the species' angle is moot."



Would you care to explain how two fags or two dikes created life all by themselves ... it doesn't happen little fella and the perpetuate the species' angle is not moot

'All by themselves' isn't the standard we hold straights to. Adoption, surrogacy, artificial insemination, blended families, etc are all ways that straights can become parents even if they can't have kids themselves.

And no one (save Bripat maybe) contests that the folks raising these children are their parents. Why then would we contest the same process if they parents are gay?

It simply makes no sense. You've applied a double standard.

Worse, no one is required to procreate or be able to procreate to get married. Not in any state. Why then would we exclude gays from marriage based on a standard that doesn't exist and applies to no one?

We wouldn't. Your argument breaks twice, on the same silly double standard.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Nah, that's just more shit you've said, Bri. You've never actually been able to back that up. Even logically, your argument breaks the moment we bring in same sex marriage.

As you and the Nazi's have the same view on gay marriage.

I don't need to back it up. It's self evident.

 

[Skylar]

Nope, they have the same right as everyone else, it certainly doesn't

You're too stupid for words. Everyone else can legally marry the person they love and hope to spend the rest of their life together. Gays can't.

There's a solution to that. The legislature. The courts are for when people are being treated differently. Like being black and being forced by government to government marry your own kind. And when you're forced to sit in the back of the bus and use different drinking fountains and bathrooms. Blacks didn't want something different, they were just treated differently. Gays were treated like everyone else.

You are too stupid for words. You think being treated the same as everyone else when you want something different is a job for the courts. It's not, it's a job for the legislature. And as a job for the legislature, my question is, why ... should .... I ... pay ... for ... it? Why do I want to pay gays to fuck their brains out? Go for it, you like anuses, fine by me. But I don't see what right that gives you to reach in my wallet. It doesn't. There is zero reason for me to pay you to fuck a guy the rest of your life

Nope, they have the same right as everyone else, it certainly doesn't

You're too stupid for words. Everyone else can legally marry the person they love and hope to spend the rest of their life together. Gays can't.

There's a solution to that. The legislature. The courts are for when people are being treated differently. Like being black and being forced by government to government marry your own kind. And when you're forced to sit in the back of the bus and use different drinking fountains and bathrooms. Blacks didn't want something different, they were just treated differently. Gays were treated like everyone else.

You are too stupid for words. You think being treated the same as everyone else when you want something different is a job for the courts. It's not, it's a job for the legislature. And as a job for the legislature, my question is, why ... should .... I ... pay ... for ... it? Why do I want to pay gays to fuck their brains out? Go for it, you like anuses, fine by me. But I don't see what right that gives you to reach in my wallet. It doesn't. There is zero reason for me to pay you to fuck a guy the rest of your life

You're a moron. If your rights are denied by the government, you sue the government. You don't sit back and hope the legislature fights for your rights.

Exactly. Generally speaking rights aren't given. They're taken.

Wrong. You are born with all the rights you're ever going to have.

Then gays were born with the right to marry in 37 of 50 states.

 

[bripat9643]

You're too stupid for words. Everyone else can legally marry the person they love and hope to spend the rest of their life together. Gays can't.

There's a solution to that. The legislature. The courts are for when people are being treated differently. Like being black and being forced by government to government marry your own kind. And when you're forced to sit in the back of the bus and use different drinking fountains and bathrooms. Blacks didn't want something different, they were just treated differently. Gays were treated like everyone else.

You are too stupid for words. You think being treated the same as everyone else when you want something different is a job for the courts. It's not, it's a job for the legislature. And as a job for the legislature, my question is, why ... should .... I ... pay ... for ... it? Why do I want to pay gays to fuck their brains out? Go for it, you like anuses, fine by me. But I don't see what right that gives you to reach in my wallet. It doesn't. There is zero reason for me to pay you to fuck a guy the rest of your life

You're too stupid for words. Everyone else can legally marry the person they love and hope to spend the rest of their life together. Gays can't.

There's a solution to that. The legislature. The courts are for when people are being treated differently. Like being black and being forced by government to government marry your own kind. And when you're forced to sit in the back of the bus and use different drinking fountains and bathrooms. Blacks didn't want something different, they were just treated differently. Gays were treated like everyone else.

You are too stupid for words. You think being treated the same as everyone else when you want something different is a job for the courts. It's not, it's a job for the legislature. And as a job for the legislature, my question is, why ... should .... I ... pay ... for ... it? Why do I want to pay gays to fuck their brains out? Go for it, you like anuses, fine by me. But I don't see what right that gives you to reach in my wallet. It doesn't. There is zero reason for me to pay you to fuck a guy the rest of your life

You're a moron. If your rights are denied by the government, you sue the government. You don't sit back and hope the legislature fights for your rights.

Exactly. Generally speaking rights aren't given. They're taken.

Wrong. You are born with all the rights you're ever going to have.

Then gays were born with the right to marry in 37 of 50 states.

Nope. The legislature doesn't have the power to create rights. It can only defend them or violate them. Apparently you believe that 10 years ago no such right existed. If that's the case, then why all the whining?

 

[Skylar]

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.

Nah, that's just more shit you've said, Bri. You've never actually been able to back that up. Even logically, your argument breaks the moment we bring in same sex marriage.

As you and the Nazi's have the same view on gay marriage.

I don't need to back it up. It's self evident.

Its self evident that you and the Nazi's have the same take on gay marriage? Or are you talking about your Godwin's law drivel, where you make up nonsense you can't possibly back up?

Remember, buddy.....you citing yourself means jack shit. As you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[toxicmedia]

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

You're not supposed to get anything out of a gay couple raising a family.

They just want you to stop telling them what to do, and stay away

 

[Skylar]

There's a solution to that. The legislature. The courts are for when people are being treated differently. Like being black and being forced by government to government marry your own kind. And when you're forced to sit in the back of the bus and use different drinking fountains and bathrooms. Blacks didn't want something different, they were just treated differently. Gays were treated like everyone else.

You are too stupid for words. You think being treated the same as everyone else when you want something different is a job for the courts. It's not, it's a job for the legislature. And as a job for the legislature, my question is, why ... should .... I ... pay ... for ... it? Why do I want to pay gays to fuck their brains out? Go for it, you like anuses, fine by me. But I don't see what right that gives you to reach in my wallet. It doesn't. There is zero reason for me to pay you to fuck a guy the rest of your life

There's a solution to that. The legislature. The courts are for when people are being treated differently. Like being black and being forced by government to government marry your own kind. And when you're forced to sit in the back of the bus and use different drinking fountains and bathrooms. Blacks didn't want something different, they were just treated differently. Gays were treated like everyone else.

You are too stupid for words. You think being treated the same as everyone else when you want something different is a job for the courts. It's not, it's a job for the legislature. And as a job for the legislature, my question is, why ... should .... I ... pay ... for ... it? Why do I want to pay gays to fuck their brains out? Go for it, you like anuses, fine by me. But I don't see what right that gives you to reach in my wallet. It doesn't. There is zero reason for me to pay you to fuck a guy the rest of your life

You're a moron. If your rights are denied by the government, you sue the government. You don't sit back and hope the legislature fights for your rights.

Exactly. Generally speaking rights aren't given. They're taken.

Wrong. You are born with all the rights you're ever going to have.

Then gays were born with the right to marry in 37 of 50 states.

Nope. The legislature doesn't have the power to create rights. It can only defend them or violate them.

The courts recognize the right to marry. And in 37 of 50 States, the courts recognize that gays have the right to same sex marriage.

You disagree. Um, so?

You're nobody. And define no rights for anyone.

 

[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.

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.

• More than 1.2 million people in the United States are living with HIV infection, and almost 1 in 7 (14%) are unaware of their infection.
• Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSMa), particularly young black/African American MSM, are most seriously affected by HIV.
• By race, blacks/African Americans face the most severe burden of HIV.

Although MSM represent about 4% of the male population in the United States4, in 2010, MSM accounted for 78% of new HIV infections among males and 63% of all new infections2. MSM accounted for 54% of all people living with HIV infection in 2011, the most recent year these data are available1.

HIV in the United States Statistics Overview Statistics Center HIV AIDS CDC

Although MSM accounted for 54% of all people living with HIV infection in 2011- it is unknown how many of those not statistically counted as MSM are closet fags nor how many were infected by half fags [bi-sexuals] or infected by someone who was infected by someone who was a half fag and so on down the line.

 

[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

You're not supposed to get anything out of a gay couple raising a family.

They just want you to stop telling them what to do, and stay away

Tell that to the baker who was fined $135,000.

 

[Skylar]

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.

• More than 1.2 million people in the United States are living with HIV infection, and almost 1 in 7 (14%) are unaware of their infection.
• Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSMa), particularly young black/African American MSM, are most seriously affected by HIV.
• By race, blacks/African Americans face the most severe burden of HIV.

Although MSM represent about 4% of the male population in the United States4, in 2010, MSM accounted for 78% of new HIV infections among males and 63% of all new infections2. MSM accounted for 54% of all people living with HIV infection in 2011, the most recent year these data are available1.

HIV in the United States Statistics Overview Statistics Center HIV AIDS CDC

Although MSM accounted for 54% of all people living with HIV infection in 2011- it is unknown how many of those not statistically counted as MSM are closet fags nor how many were infected by half fags [bi-sexuals] or infected by someone who was infected by someone who was a half fag and so on down the line.

That's merely the US. And as you know, HIV doesn't begin and end at our borders.

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 in 2011: 3.3 million

Worldwide HIV AIDS Statistics AVERT

HIV is clearly a heterosexual disease, with heterosexual sex being the primary method of transmission. And a solid majority of the victims of HIV are women and children.

Simply destroying the fantasy that HIV is a 'gay disease'.

 

[Skylar]

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

You're not supposed to get anything out of a gay couple raising a family.

They just want you to stop telling them what to do, and stay away

Tell that to the baker who was fined $135,000.

The Baker didn't get fined because of gay marriage. He got fined because he violated PA laws.

If it was merely gay marriage.....why didn't all bakers in the state get the same fine?