Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[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.

SOME hetros do, ALL same sex couples MUST.

Pointing out the obvious.

 

[Pop23]

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.

You didn't without a males involvement.

 

[Slyhunter]

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 are very confused. You talk as if government is your GOD. As if government has handed down the decree that you shall go forth and multiply.

Just because you justify in your own haid that your child tax break is just because your child will be a good little tax payer, does not actually justify your tax break, nor does it justify you PISSING on gays for daring the want the right to marry.

Can you answer the question? What benefit does society get from sanctioning gay marriage?

You're kidding right? You want to know what benefit society gets out of family units? Sigh.... First off why should society demand a benefit from a family unit? What the hell does any family unit "OWE" society?

Government WORKS FOR US. They are our EMPLOYEES. We use, in this case, our government employees to arbitrate contracts. For example, marriage licenses between two consenting adults. If there is a divorce, or other issue of legal matter with regard to said marriage our government employees are PAID to arbitrate said issues.

So the answer is "no, you cannot answer the question of the OP."
Thanks for clarifying.

The question is a strawman, presupposing that marriages owe society some form of benefit for some supposed subsidizing that is going on for marriages. My answer to the OP was very clear. The strawman is bullshit.

Then why have marriage laws at all. What justification do we have in regulating marriage if it has no benefits to Government or society to do so?

 

[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.

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

No, without the introduction of sperm to egg. No coupling or intercourse required.

Parenting does not require coupling or intercourse. Marriage does not require coupling, intercourse, children or taking out the trash (among other things).

And here we thought you'd abandoned this failed argument. Falling back on an old canard. You must be tired, Pops. You should rest, this battle is over, equality has won.

 

[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.

You didn't without a males involvement.

So? His "involvement" ended when he came.

 

[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.

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.

Why is post menopausal opposite sex marriage legal?

 

[kaz]

I didn't evade you being rightwing now -- I echoed your claim that you were a rightie but now you're not. Capiche?

Thanks for proving me correct though. I appreciate it, rightie.

Yep, you are a clown. Why'd you vote for Romney, anyway, Republican?

Why on Earth do you think I voted for Romney?? You really can't tell I didn't since I'm poking fun at him? But lemme guess ... you voted for that clown, didn'tcha?

You are the one insisting we have a right winger in the conversation, so you get to be it

I'll take that as a, "yes," between the two of us, it was you who voted for that rightwing clown.

Romney is right wing? What are you talking about? He's a tax and spend fiscal liberal. The only thing you object to about the guy is the "R" next to his name. You are two clowns in a pod, you and Romney.

That's what's so funny about you sheep Democrats. You take someone like Romney who is not in your party but agrees with you on most issues and disagrees with me on most issues and you think he's me because of pure partisanship. He's not a Democrat. The world in your tiny mind boils down to Democrat and not Democrat, it's all you can handle.

You chose your avatar well, it's you on multiple levels, he's your clown, Homey.

 

[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.

No, without the introduction of sperm to egg. No coupling or intercourse required.

Parenting does not require coupling or intercourse. Marriage does not require coupling, intercourse, children or taking out the trash (among other things).

And here we thought you'd abandoned this failed argument. Falling back on an old canard. You must be tired, Pops. You should rest, this battle is over, equality has won.

Give up on a sucessful argument?

An egg (female) must couple with sperm (male) to make a baby.

I'd have thought you of all people would know that.

 

[kaz]

Dumbfuck ... the pursuit of happiness is an inalienable right. Marrying "who you want" is fundamental towards that.

Yet that standard is a lie. You don't support polygamists marrying "who they want" and you don't support narcissists like Skylar marrying "who they want." Skylar's view of a perfect romantic evening is a bottle of wine and a tape of his own voice.

Actual standards are things that don't shift. You introduce that standard to get gays over the line, then you turn it off. You are completely shallow and obvious.

And speaking of shallow, the pursuit of happiness is in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. The Constitution protects life, liberty and property. The pursuit of happiness is a justification for our laws, not a power of government. Which again is how fucked your brain is, you think the pursuit of happiness is a government power. Frankly that's sick, Lenin

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

No, without the introduction of sperm to egg. No coupling or intercourse required.

Parenting does not require coupling or intercourse. Marriage does not require coupling, intercourse, children or taking out the trash (among other things).

And here we thought you'd abandoned this failed argument. Falling back on an old canard. You must be tired, Pops. You should rest, this battle is over, equality has won.

Give up on a sucessful argument?

An egg (female) must couple with sperm (male) to make a baby.

I'd have thought you of all people would know that.

Babies aren't a requirement of marriage.

 

[kaz]

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

Never said gays only adopt abandoned babies if they make a buck off it. They would likely adopt them if they didn't. This would be another case of you seeing things that are not there. It's why you're as demented as you are.

LOL, you got my point without getting it. They would do it anyway, which ... read the op post ... goes back to the question, so what do we get out of it? LOL, you walk into a trap and still don't get what happened when it springs

 

[kaz]

you'll have to explain all that to God someday, and he'll know the truth

Gyod, another right wing, religious whack job. Go peddle your damnation somewhere else to someone who gives a shit about your intolerant religious beliefs. Still missing Jerry Fallwell and The People That Loathe Club, aren't you??

Ummmmmm........yeah............

Because my being a right winger has been a problem around here

Whatever, you started ranting about God and judging people and it sounded like any other right wing Christian bigot to me

No, I'm the bigot who displays prejudice against people who oppose gays, and/or gay marriage.

I'm really irrational about it too. It comes from a childhood full of fights between me, and people who used to pick on my brother, who came out years after.

It's just a little PTSD

You're telling people God will judge them and they are fucked. You and the right wing Christian loonie bats, tom-ay-to tom-ah-to

 

[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.

Why is post menopausal opposite sex marriage legal?

Your argument is that gays can procreate the same way elderly straights can?

Name a single same sex coupling that didn't create a child BASED ONLY ON AGE.

you do realize that the oldest birth recorded was a woman in her 70s, right?

What is the oldest birth recorded as a result of same sex coupling?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Dumbfuck ... the pursuit of happiness is an inalienable right. Marrying "who you want" is fundamental towards that.

Yet that standard is a lie. You don't support polygamists marrying "who they want" and you don't support narcissists like Skylar marrying "who they want." Skylar's view of a perfect romantic evening is a bottle of wine and a tape of his own voice.

Actual standards are things that don't shift. You introduce that standard to get gays over the line, then you turn it off. You are completely shallow and obvious.

And speaking of shallow, the pursuit of happiness is in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. The Constitution protects life, liberty and property. The pursuit of happiness is a justification for our laws, not a power of government. Which again is how fucked your brain is, you think the pursuit of happiness is a government power. Frankly that's sick, Lenin

Yes our laws are supposed to protect one's right to the pursuits of happiness, among which 'marital bliss' should certainly qualify,

Christ, if anything qualifies as 'pursuit of happiness'.

Letting government limit legal marriage to only certain types, for no good reason, is clearly an infringement on one's 'pursuit of happiness' rights.

 

[kaz]

I at least get the concept of straight government marriage. Perpetuation of the species. It is the best situation for kids to have a traditional family with a mother and father because:

1) Men and women have different personalities and it is ideal for kids to have a parental relationship with one of each. Having two of the same sex is like having two left shoes or two right shoes. Neither a left shoe nor right shoes is more important than the other, you need one of each. They are different.

2) Kids are best served with a stay at home parent, generally a mother for many reasons for nurturing, caring and helping them stay out of trouble unattended

So for a mother to stay home, it's expensive. Taxpayers as part of the species benefit from the advancement of the species. And frankly that leads even financially to better taxpayers on average in the future.

If gays want to mate and pool resources, that's fine. But why should taxpayers pay for that? Government revenue is reduced, but why? What do we get out of it? Why should we have to fund it? What benefit is it to society that we should be paying for it?

The question: This is a financial question, not a moral one. How financially do the rest of us benefit that government should be charging us higher taxes to make up for lower taxes for people to have gay sex who do not perpetuate the species? Why do we gain for that we should pay for it? That is the question

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

Your point?

 

[Seawytch]

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.

No, without the introduction of sperm to egg. No coupling or intercourse required.

Parenting does not require coupling or intercourse. Marriage does not require coupling, intercourse, children or taking out the trash (among other things).

And here we thought you'd abandoned this failed argument. Falling back on an old canard. You must be tired, Pops. You should rest, this battle is over, equality has won.

Give up on a sucessful argument?

An egg (female) must couple with sperm (male) to make a baby.

I'd have thought you of all people would know that.

Thank you Captain Obvious...now explain what either of those have to do with civil marriage or actual parenting. Oh right, you can't...you just keep repeating the obvious as though it matters. Carry on.

 

[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.

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.

Why is post menopausal opposite sex marriage legal?

Your argument is that gays can procreate the same way elderly straights can?

Name a single same sex coupling that didn't create a child BASED ONLY ON AGE.

you do realize that the oldest birth recorded was a woman in her 70s, right?

What is the oldest birth recorded as a result of same sex coupling?

I want you to cite one child requirement in any current marriage law in this country.

ONE

 

[kaz]

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 close to 20% 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.

You need to repent, I hope it's not already too late. The kingdom of heaven is not going to wait forever, and it will not be the home of an abomination

 

[Pop23]

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.

You didn't without a males involvement.

So? His "involvement" ended when he came.

And his involvement was necessary. Sorry girl, just pointing out the obvious again.

 

[Pop23]

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.

Why is post menopausal opposite sex marriage legal?

Your argument is that gays can procreate the same way elderly straights can?

Name a single same sex coupling that didn't create a child BASED ONLY ON AGE.

you do realize that the oldest birth recorded was a woman in her 70s, right?

What is the oldest birth recorded as a result of same sex coupling?

I want you to cite one child requirement in any current marriage law in this country.

ONE

You can't run from questions by asking an irrelevant question