Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
He can't win an argument. That's why he invents these strawmen that he can beat up since he can't beat anyone's actual arguments.Again, you try to create an imaginary argument by making up what other posters have said.He protested it by presumably getting a state issued marriage license.Ask him what he's actively done to get rid of that government marriage he's so against.Not gay couples, the concept of government marriage
Now you're railing against government marriage....not gay marriage?
Well that was easy.
Well, bodecea found a hetero not ready for marriage either. You may not give a shit how your partner feels and do anything her way, but that isn't how real marriage works.
I suppose that's par for the course for a guy who thinks being a husband means has a penisDo you even have trouble winning arguments against your own imaginary foes?
Isn't it sad to see someone who needs, literally NEEDS those labels of parent to be just so? It's as if they can't show by their actions who the real parents are, it's got to be like wearing a nametag that says "Hello, due to biology I am your parent."Now you are telling us about what kind of babies we had.Even by your 'procreation' standard, SeaWitch meets every criteria
Nope, she had a test tube baby, she's the parent and the only parent in the government marriage. Read my original post
I assumed when you said the father was a gay man he didn't bang you, are you saying that's not the case? I admit that was an assumption on my part, you saying it was wrong?
Can't keep your lesbians straight (pardon the pun)
That was me that had a gay man father her children. He's the donor, my wife and I are the parents. So says our children and so says the law. The law part matters because of anti gay bigots like you that would want to take our children away from us.
But it is that they know we are their parents that matters. They know their donor is their donor and that my wife and I are their parents.
So, Kaz gives up his deeply felt beliefs that government should be out of marriage to keep someone else happy? Then I guess those aren't deeply held beliefs, are they?NO WAY! I'm pretty sure he refused to get a government license...because if he did, that would make him a hypocrite since he keeps saying he doesn't believe government should be in marriage.
But he doesn't want to...his wife makes him...and you're just mean for pointing that out!
I prefer to think of it as I'm doing it for her feelings, rather than she's making me, but tom-ay-to tom-ah-to.
It's sad you two don't do things for your parnters over yourselves, I'd hate to live that way. I guess you just don't know what you are missing since you haven't experienced it
Irony...again. Twice in a half hour. The boy's on a roll!NO WAY! I'm pretty sure he refused to get a government license...because if he did, that would make him a hypocrite since he keeps saying he doesn't believe government should be in marriage.
But he doesn't want to...his wife makes him...and you're just mean for pointing that out!
I prefer to think of it as I'm doing it for her feelings, rather than she's making me, but tom-ay-to tom-ah-to.
It's sad you two don't do things for your parnters over yourselves, I'd hate to live that way. I guess you just don't know what you are missing since you haven't experienced it
Cries the moron who thinks Congress' ability to vote on bills is a "right."Sadly, once again, your ignorance interferes with your message. This time, your idiocy stems from some bizarre notion that Congressmen/women have the "right" to say no to a budget. This becomes a shining example of how you don't know the difference between rights and privileges. But hopefully, since you're attracted to shiny objects, you can learn the difference now?Because they should be treated equal under the law.If it makes you feel any better, I find that disgusting as well. But I do support choice. It's not my place to determine who can marry who as long as it's between consenting adults.
The question, if you ever decide to read my original post, is why we should be paying for that
Progress, finally. So when Republicans didn't want to cave to our Imperial Ruler and give him the budget he wanted, they had the right to say no? It's not just about money after all? You came 9 yards, can you go the last one for the first down and be the first liberal to grasp the thread?
All you had to do at that point was fall forward for the first down. I knew you couldn't do it
Can you please explain how this gay couple is being subsidized by the tax payers by their marriage?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 don't know what subsidies you are speaking about? What tax benefit are they getting that anyone else is not getting?
Two big ones are they pay lower filing jointly tax rates and they are exempt from the death tax. Note it's liberals who demand we have a death tax.
You didn't know married people get those? Seriously?
Why shouldn't they get those?
Begging the question. Read my OP post
No, that's YOUR concept...a concept most people don't share
You'll say anything, wont' you? Got it, people don't think lower tax rates are about children, they are about holding hands. What a shill
Isn't it sad to see someone who needs, literally NEEDS those labels of parent to be just so? It's as if they can't show by their actions who the real parents are, it's got to be like wearing a nametag that says "Hello, due to biology I am your parent."Now you are telling us about what kind of babies we had.Even by your 'procreation' standard, SeaWitch meets every criteria
Nope, she had a test tube baby, she's the parent and the only parent in the government marriage. Read my original post
I assumed when you said the father was a gay man he didn't bang you, are you saying that's not the case? I admit that was an assumption on my part, you saying it was wrong?
Can't keep your lesbians straight (pardon the pun)
That was me that had a gay man father her children. He's the donor, my wife and I are the parents. So says our children and so says the law. The law part matters because of anti gay bigots like you that would want to take our children away from us.
But it is that they know we are their parents that matters. They know their donor is their donor and that my wife and I are their parents.
I'm really beginning to notice that is his MO.He can't win an argument. That's why he invents these strawmen that he can beat up since he can't beat anyone's actual arguments.Again, you try to create an imaginary argument by making up what other posters have said.He protested it by presumably getting a state issued marriage license.Ask him what he's actively done to get rid of that government marriage he's so against.Now you're railing against government marriage....not gay marriage?
Well that was easy.
Well, bodecea found a hetero not ready for marriage either. You may not give a shit how your partner feels and do anything her way, but that isn't how real marriage works.
I suppose that's par for the course for a guy who thinks being a husband means has a penis
But it does jive with the belief in "traditional" marriage....which was a legal way to declare that a child was YOURS and you weren't a cuckold. And that the wife and the children were the husband/father's possessions.Isn't it sad to see someone who needs, literally NEEDS those labels of parent to be just so? It's as if they can't show by their actions who the real parents are, it's got to be like wearing a nametag that says "Hello, due to biology I am your parent."Now you are telling us about what kind of babies we had.Nope, she had a test tube baby, she's the parent and the only parent in the government marriage. Read my original post
I assumed when you said the father was a gay man he didn't bang you, are you saying that's not the case? I admit that was an assumption on my part, you saying it was wrong?
Can't keep your lesbians straight (pardon the pun)
That was me that had a gay man father her children. He's the donor, my wife and I are the parents. So says our children and so says the law. The law part matters because of anti gay bigots like you that would want to take our children away from us.
But it is that they know we are their parents that matters. They know their donor is their donor and that my wife and I are their parents.
Maybe it's an ownership thing. "This is mine!, I made this".
Sad way to parent.
Can you please explain how this gay couple is being subsidized by the tax payers by their marriage?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 don't know what subsidies you are speaking about? What tax benefit are they getting that anyone else is not getting?
Two big ones are they pay lower filing jointly tax rates and they are exempt from the death tax. Note it's liberals who demand we have a death tax.
You didn't know married people get those? Seriously?
Why shouldn't they get those?
Begging the question. Read my OP post
Married couples without children get to file joint returns.
Isn't it sad to see someone who needs, literally NEEDS those labels of parent to be just so? It's as if they can't show by their actions who the real parents are, it's got to be like wearing a nametag that says "Hello, due to biology I am your parent."Now you are telling us about what kind of babies we had.Nope, she had a test tube baby, she's the parent and the only parent in the government marriage. Read my original post
I assumed when you said the father was a gay man he didn't bang you, are you saying that's not the case? I admit that was an assumption on my part, you saying it was wrong?
Can't keep your lesbians straight (pardon the pun)
That was me that had a gay man father her children. He's the donor, my wife and I are the parents. So says our children and so says the law. The law part matters because of anti gay bigots like you that would want to take our children away from us.
But it is that they know we are their parents that matters. They know their donor is their donor and that my wife and I are their parents.
Maybe it's an ownership thing. "This is mine!, I made this".
Sad way to parent.
Sure...just like there's been opposite sex hetero (and homo) couples with marriages of conveniences.........like forever.Can you please explain how this gay couple is being subsidized by the tax payers by their marriage?
I don't know what subsidies you are speaking about? What tax benefit are they getting that anyone else is not getting?
Two big ones are they pay lower filing jointly tax rates and they are exempt from the death tax. Note it's liberals who demand we have a death tax.
You didn't know married people get those? Seriously?
Why shouldn't they get those?
Begging the question. Read my OP post
Married couples without children get to file joint returns.
And soon same sex hetro couples can too!
Employers offering spousal benefits are gonna love that!
Can you please explain how this gay couple is being subsidized by the tax payers by their marriage?
I don't know what subsidies you are speaking about? What tax benefit are they getting that anyone else is not getting?
Two big ones are they pay lower filing jointly tax rates and they are exempt from the death tax. Note it's liberals who demand we have a death tax.
You didn't know married people get those? Seriously?
Why shouldn't they get those?
Begging the question. Read my OP post
Married couples without children get to file joint returns.
And soon same sex hetro couples can too!
Employers offering spousal benefits are gonna love that!
You remain the class clown
Of Course Skylar agreed the justice system is an appropriate avenue to fight for ones rights...
Faun: "If your rights are denied by the government, you sue the government."
Skylar: "Exactly."
I'm still waiting to you to quote Skylar saying he can't deny calling the British PM and British Intelligence liars..
Again, you try to create an imaginary argument by making up what other posters have said
YOU had a good run? Since when did YOU do anything to make this a great country? You can't even tell us what you have ACTIVELY done to change a wrong as you see it. You just sit in your corner and whine about it.Gee, I guess you picked the wrong country to live in then. Bummer for you.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.
The courts are full of shit. No one has a "right" to demand anything from others, including government. You only have the "right" to be left alone when you aren't infringing on other people's right to the same
I am in a country founded exactly on that. Eventually they are all overrun with greedy leaches like you. We had a good run
You are so fucking stupid, it's scary. Is this what Libertarianism is about? An ideology for the stupid to aggregate?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.
The courts are full of shit. No one has a "right" to demand anything from others, including government. You only have the "right" to be left alone when you aren't infringing on other people's right to the same
A primary role of the government is to protect our rights. If someone's rights are being denied, the court system you so disdain is a proper avenue for redress. You learned absolutely nothing from the founding of this nation. What a pity.
