Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[WorldWatcher]

The chances of contracting HIV via heterosexual sex are lower than your chances of getting hit by a meteorite.

Just a little trivia for a mental exercise...

Odds of getting HIV through heterosexual intercourse 4 (Men) or 8 (Women) in 10,000 exposures.
Odds of dieing from an asteroid strike 1 in 74,817,414.,

To put that in like terms that would 29,924 (Men) or 59,854 (Woman) cases of HIV per 74,817,414 exposures. Your are chances of contracting HIV from heterosexual intercourse is lower? Not.


Odds of dying from an asteroid strike 1 in 74 817 414 - CNET
CDC - Transmission Risk - HIV and the Law - Policies and Programs - HIV AIDS

>>>>

 

[Pop23]

The question should be :

Why should other gay taxpayers have to subsidize hetrosexual mating?

Because male/female mating is the best job creator ever?

Because without it that keyboard your typing on would not have been made?

Because those cops, soldiers and firefighters that protect you comes from it?

Get the picture?

 

[GreenBean]

Conservatives like yourself fought domestic partnerships as vigorously as you fight gay marriage.

You are of course, talking out your ass so basically FO

 

[bripat9643]

The chances of contracting HIV via heterosexual sex are lower than your chances of getting hit by a meteorite.

Just a little trivia for a mental exercise...

Odds of getting HIV through heterosexual intercourse 4 (Men) or 8 (Women) in 10,000 exposures.
Odds of dieing from an asteroid strike 1 in 74,817,414.,

To put that in like terms that would 29,924 (Men) or 59,854 (Woman) cases of HIV per 74,817,414 exposures. Your are chances of contracting HIV from heterosexual intercourse is lower? Not.


Odds of dying from an asteroid strike 1 in 74 817 414 - CNET
CDC - Transmission Risk - HIV and the Law - Policies and Programs - HIV AIDS

>>>>

The CDC figures are bullshit. The CDC has done nothing but lie and dissemble on the subject of HIV. The statistics it collects on HIV are largely propaganda, but they still show the odds of heterosexual non IV drugs users getting HIV is pretty close to zero. The CDC grossly over estimates the risk of contracting the disease heterosexually.

 

[AntiParty]

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

 

[AntiParty]

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

So for a mother to stay home, it's expensive~

 

[NYcarbineer]

The chances of contracting HIV via heterosexual sex are lower than your chances of getting hit by a meteorite.

Just a little trivia for a mental exercise...

Odds of getting HIV through heterosexual intercourse 4 (Men) or 8 (Women) in 10,000 exposures.
Odds of dieing from an asteroid strike 1 in 74,817,414.,

To put that in like terms that would 29,924 (Men) or 59,854 (Woman) cases of HIV per 74,817,414 exposures. Your are chances of contracting HIV from heterosexual intercourse is lower? Not.


Odds of dying from an asteroid strike 1 in 74 817 414 - CNET
CDC - Transmission Risk - HIV and the Law - Policies and Programs - HIV AIDS

>>>>

The CDC figures are bullshit. The CDC has done nothing but lie and dissemble on the subject of HIV. The statistics it collects on HIV are largely propaganda, but they still show the odds of heterosexual non IV drugs users getting HIV is pretty close to zero. The CDC grossly over estimates the risk of contracting the disease heterosexually.

What's their estimate on the risk of two married gays spreading AIDs?

 

[Steinlight]

Gays can't "mate". We are just subsidizing a evolutionary dead end and anti-social behavior.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The question should be :

Why should other gay taxpayers have to subsidize hetrosexual mating?

Well golly gee - for starters they are the product of heterosexual mating - ya think ?

It's funny that the bigots cling to this reproduction thing, but it's understandable. It's the last thing they can find that's in some way different between a gay couple and an opposite sex couple,

even if it's irrelevant.

It's a desperate attempt to find anything that could thwart the principle of equal protection under the law.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Gays can't "mate". We are just subsidizing a evolutionary dead end and anti-social behavior.

Most gays are born from heterosexual matings.

 

[GreenBean]

The question should be :

Why should other gay taxpayers have to subsidize hetrosexual mating?

Well golly gee - for starters they are the product of heterosexual mating - ya think ?

It's funny that the bigots cling to this reproduction thing, but it's understandable. It's the last thing they can find that's in some way different between a gay couple and an opposite sex couple,

even if it's irrelevant.

It's a desperate attempt to find anything that could thwart the principle of equal protection under the law.

Hardly irrelevant little fella, perhaps too complex for a mental midget such as yourself.

1. Let me Lay it out for you booboo - your mom and dad screwed, months later you popped your slimy little head into the world.

Is that Good or Bad ? - it's all a matter of perspective, quite frankly the world would've been a lot better place without vermin like you.

2. You stuck it up your queer partners ass - months later he gets diagnosed with HIV .

Is that Good or Bad ? - it's all a matter of perspective, quite frankly the world would be a lot better place without vermin like that. Unfortunately, in most cases the hard working honest heterosexuals of society will bare the brunt of caring for the slimy little cum guzzler till the virus finally rids us of him.

I hope that clarifies things for you a tad little fella . see ya

 

[NYcarbineer]

The question should be :

Why should other gay taxpayers have to subsidize hetrosexual mating?

Well golly gee - for starters they are the product of heterosexual mating - ya think ?

It's funny that the bigots cling to this reproduction thing, but it's understandable. It's the last thing they can find that's in some way different between a gay couple and an opposite sex couple,

even if it's irrelevant.

It's a desperate attempt to find anything that could thwart the principle of equal protection under the law.

Hardly irrelevant little fella, perhaps too complex for a mental midget such as yourself.

1. Let me Lay it out for you booboo - your mom and dad screwed, months later you popped your slimy little head into the world.

Is that Good or Bad ? - it's all a matter of perspective, quite frankly the world would've been a lot better place without vermin like you.

2. You stuck it up your queer partners ass - months later he gets diagnosed with HIV .

Is that Good or Bad ? - it's all a matter of perspective, quite frankly the world would be a lot better place without vermin like that. Unfortunately, in most cases the hard working honest heterosexuals of society will bare the brunt of caring for the slimy little cum guzzler till the virus finally rids us of him.

I hope that clarifies things for you a tad little fella . see ya

I've caused another RW meltdown.

 

[bripat9643]

The chances of contracting HIV via heterosexual sex are lower than your chances of getting hit by a meteorite.

Just a little trivia for a mental exercise...

Odds of getting HIV through heterosexual intercourse 4 (Men) or 8 (Women) in 10,000 exposures.
Odds of dieing from an asteroid strike 1 in 74,817,414.,

To put that in like terms that would 29,924 (Men) or 59,854 (Woman) cases of HIV per 74,817,414 exposures. Your are chances of contracting HIV from heterosexual intercourse is lower? Not.


Odds of dying from an asteroid strike 1 in 74 817 414 - CNET
CDC - Transmission Risk - HIV and the Law - Policies and Programs - HIV AIDS

>>>>

The CDC figures are bullshit. The CDC has done nothing but lie and dissemble on the subject of HIV. The statistics it collects on HIV are largely propaganda, but they still show the odds of heterosexual non IV drugs users getting HIV is pretty close to zero. The CDC grossly over estimates the risk of contracting the disease heterosexually.

What's their estimate on the risk of two married gays spreading AIDs?

It's not zero because gays are seldom monogamous.

 

[Pop23]

The question should be :

Why should other gay taxpayers have to subsidize hetrosexual mating?

Well golly gee - for starters they are the product of heterosexual mating - ya think ?

It's funny that the bigots cling to this reproduction thing, but it's understandable. It's the last thing they can find that's in some way different between a gay couple and an opposite sex couple,

even if it's irrelevant.

It's a desperate attempt to find anything that could thwart the principle of equal protection under the law.

Somewhat different?

Seriously?

No living being has ever walked the face of this planet frome same sex coupling and that's only SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT?

You can't be thinking clearly.

What you pointed out doesn't make the two groups somewhat different, it makes them INCREDIBLY DIFFERENT.

 

[Pop23]

Gays can't "mate". We are just subsidizing a evolutionary dead end and anti-social behavior.

Most gays are born from heterosexual matings.

MOST?

Name one that wasn't.

Amazing isn't it?

 

[Seawytch]

Are you exempt from the estate tax?

Yes. I did my duty as a red blooded American and screwed until I had a brood. Though granted I didn't stop then...

You realize this doesn't contradict my post. I did the concept of marriage, gays can't. They can adopt or have test tube children, but what are we getting out of that?

What we are getting out of that, at least in the case of adoption, is a home welcoming children who were abandoned by their natural parents.

That's what the gays get, the question is what do taxpayers get? Gays aren't going to make babies, and they aren't going to adopt because they get a tax break. In hetero relationships, there is way more too it

Asked an answered. I can't help you are really so fucking stupid that you don't understand how placing abandoned children in homes is a benefit to society; not just to the parents adopting the children.

You really are fucked in the head, kaz. How do you not understand something as basic as that?

So gays only take "abandoned babies" if they make a buck off it? Other than that, they won't do it?

And we're supposed to pay off all gays and just hope enough of them take abandoned babies to make it worth it?

I'd rather just pay whoever takes the abandoned babies to care for them and skip the paying people for screwing their own sex part entirely

And here we have another indication that for Kaz it's all about him not liking how gays have sex. He has no problem paying for straight people screwing the opposite sex without results.

Kaz says it's all about the money...so let's look at the math. Childless couples make up 10% of the heterosexual married population. Those numbers alone are far, far greater than just the percentage of gays in the population let alone gay couples wanting to marry.

So Kaz only whining about gay couples (who do in fact have children...2 million children are being raised in known LGBT homes, including 4% of total adoptions) leaves only one conclusion. Kaz thinks gays are icky.

This does not hold up in a court of law where people go to redress their grievances like gays did when states decided to pass laws that violated the US Constitution.

 

[Pop23]

The question should be :

Why should other gay taxpayers have to subsidize hetrosexual mating?

Well golly gee - for starters they are the product of heterosexual mating - ya think ?

It's funny that the bigots cling to this reproduction thing, but it's understandable. It's the last thing they can find that's in some way different between a gay couple and an opposite sex couple,

even if it's irrelevant.

It's a desperate attempt to find anything that could thwart the principle of equal protection under the law.

Somewhat different?

Seriously?

No living being has ever walked the face of this planet frome same sex coupling and that's only SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT?

You can't be thinking clearly.

What you just pointed out doesn't make the groups somewhat different, it make the two groups incredibly different!

 

[Seawytch]

Gays can't "mate". We are just subsidizing a evolutionary dead end and anti-social behavior.

Most gays are born from heterosexual matings.

MOST?

Name one that wasn't.

Amazing isn't it?

Gays have children. Lots of people have children without having heterosexual sex. You cannot be that ignorant about science. Even straights use this science. Some gays even have gay children. All it takes is an egg and a sperm (for now). Sex is not required.

 

[Pop23]

Gays can't "mate". We are just subsidizing a evolutionary dead end and anti-social behavior.

Most gays are born from heterosexual matings.

MOST?

Name one that wasn't.

Amazing isn't it?

Gays have children. Lots of people have children without having heterosexual sex. You cannot be that ignorant about science. Even straights use this science. Some gays even have gay children. All it takes is an egg and a sperm (for now). Sex is not required.

Without intercourse yes, without the coupling of male/female, impossible.

 

[Seawytch]

Gays can't "mate". We are just subsidizing a evolutionary dead end and anti-social behavior.

Gays do "mate", mate and are not incapable of procreation. I am a lesbian woman who has given birth to more babies than most heterosexual women...and not once did it require sex with a man.