Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[NYcarbineer]

The difference, Lieutenant Clueless, is that Pop's point was topical for this thread and yours wasn't

Of course my response was to the "argument" , SN Ridiculous. "Making a baby" isn't a requirement for civil marriage. In some states it is an actual requirement that the married individuals CANNOT "make babies".

The debate is why I should subsize gay mating. In no way does a requirement for normal, straight people to have a child address that either way

The short answer is:

Because you [think] you subsidize heterosexual mating, and there is no good reason to discriminate against gay mating regarding that subsidy you imagine.

 

[kaz]

The difference, Lieutenant Clueless, is that Pop's point was topical for this thread and yours wasn't

The last refuge of a bad debater is claiming someone's post wasn't 'topical'. In your case it's more often your first refuge.

Um...you weren't on the debate team, where you Harley? I was, I went an entire year losing only one debate and I was the lead on my team. That one was my fault, and it was on a technicality. Just so you know, being typical is actually central to debating.

And formal debating aside, think about what you said. How stupid is it that you say it's a lame argument to say an argument doesn't address the point in the discussion? I like to keep you talking, it is good for a laugh and wow, you make liberals look as stupid as you are

The point in this discussion, your point, was demolished long ago.

Yes, I was pulverized in an avalanche of Democratic talking points. How am I not getting that?

So basically you are conceding you can't actually address my actual point by actually not addressing it

Your original point was that gays should not be allowed to legally marry because they don't reproduce. That idiotic argument has been pulverized.

It was? Wow, I missed that. Gay sex leads to kids? When did that happen?

 

[kaz]

The difference, Lieutenant Clueless, is that Pop's point was topical for this thread and yours wasn't

Of course my response was to the "argument" , SN Ridiculous. "Making a baby" isn't a requirement for civil marriage. In some states it is an actual requirement that the married individuals CANNOT "make babies".

The debate is why I should subsize gay mating. In no way does a requirement for normal, straight people to have a child address that either way

The short answer is:

Because you [think] you subsidize heterosexual mating, and there is no good reason to discriminate against gay mating regarding that subsidy you imagine.

So gays are passing on lower married tax rates and paying the estate tax when they don't have to? Link?

 

[kaz]

I work. My wife stays home to care for our two children. Why does my family not meet your criteria for the married tax break?

You know beyond this, who wants heavy progressive taxes? You do. Who wants the estate tax? You do.

Then you want to not pay them, you want an out. You want other people to pay them.

Leftists want the taxes and leftists want gay marriage and gays exempted from that. Then when we don't acquiesce to letting you out of your own trap, we are bigots. Yeah

 

[kaz]

The question should be :

Why should other gay taxpayers have to subsidize hetrosexual mating?

Perpetuation of the species? We have heavy progressive taxes, how do mother's stay home with their kids in this expensive day to live?

 

[Faun]

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.

So what, Captain Obvious?

 

[Seawytch]

The difference, Lieutenant Clueless, is that Pop's point was topical for this thread and yours wasn't

Of course my response was to the "argument" , SN Ridiculous. "Making a baby" isn't a requirement for civil marriage. In some states it is an actual requirement that the married individuals CANNOT "make babies".

The debate is why I should subsize gay mating. In no way does a requirement for normal, straight people to have a child address that either way

Right...it's all about the sex for you, we got that. Established.

Just because Pops has the same "gays have sex I think is icky" "argument" doesn't mean my response to your silly "argument" is off topic. It responds directly to the topic. 10% of straight married couples DON'T have children. 2 million children live in homes with known gay parents.

I work. My wife stays home to care for our two children. Why does my family not meet your criteria for the married tax break?

When you say "known gay parents," your stat would include gay and bi parents married to straights, and the word "known" is a lie, it is using statistics and counting those assumed to be gay based on studies. Known would mean empirical data, and it's clearly not. Those aren't children living in stable two gay households, which would be a tiny fraction of that. So it's again irrelevant to the point and doesn't justify funding gay mating.

Known as in self identified. We KNOW that 4% of all adoptions are by gay couples...because they self identify. No, it does not include gay people in straight marriages.

The new survey also finds that 35% of LGBT adults are parents, compared with 74% of adults in the general public. About half of LGBT respondents (51%) either have children or want to; an additional 19% say they are not sure. A May 2013 Pew Research survey that asked a slightly different question (with no explicit option for “not sure”) found that 91% of all adults either have or want children, with an additional 1% volunteering that they are not sure.​

Within the LGBT population, gay men are less likely than lesbians to say they are currently a parent or would like one day to become one. Bisexuals are more likely than gay men and lesbians to already be parents.

Chapter 4 Marriage and Parenting Pew Research Center​

This thread is not specifically about you or any one gay. That one gay family is happy and stable doesn't justify paying for all gay mating

Kaz can't answer the question without exposing himself as just another garden variety anti gay bigot who is icked out by two guys fucking.

 

[Faun]

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.

Fucking retarded kazed as usual. You must think the GOP doesn't nominate rightwingers for president.

Despite your hallucinations, Romney scores a C5.0 on the crowdpac scale. That makes him more Conservative than Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Lindsey Graham, and Rick Santorum.

 

[Faun]

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.

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

My clown?? You voted for him, not me.



You're the gift that keeps on givin'.

 

[Pop23]

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.

You should start a thread on that then. This thread is why we should subsidize gay mating.

I was answering a question also posed, about why we should subsidize hetro mating AND one that made the statement that hetro and gay mating are not much different.

 

[Pop23]

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

You're the one claiming there's a child requirement in current marriage law. That's the whole point of your argument.

So prove it.

Where did I claim that?

 

[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.

So what, Captain Obvious?

Thank you. It is obvious then that NYCarabiner was in error when he said the two demographic groups were the same with the MINOR difference that only one can procreate.

 

[Faun]

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."

Yet another wonderful example of how kaz lies. Here he claims I don't support polygamy. Where do I actually stand on polygamy? I told him that just yesterday...

"Polygamy? Personally, I believe people should be allowed to marry more than one spouse." ~ Faun​

Are you capable of posting without lying?

Are your positions really that weak?

 

[Faun]

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

The Constitution protects our rights, Zippy.

 

[GreenBean]

Human beings and all sexual beings evolved a sex drive for one purpose and one purpose only - perpetuation of the species via sexual reproduction. .

A homosexual sex drive is not a sex drive at all, it is an aberration, an abnormal hideous perversion of the evolutionary process, it is a degeneration and break down in the natural process. It is not really even sex -because sex can only take place between two members of opposite genders - the closest adjective in English to describe homosexual activity is Sodomy.

In the social realm, Marriage evolved to help ensure that the fruit of a woman's womb was in fact the product of the husbands DNA , not the Mailman. It is not only a contract to love honor and cherish one another - it is a contract that the male will remain responsible for the child[ren] , the products, of said contract. In many cases , even when it has been proven that a husband is not the biological father - he still bares financial responsibility for the child.

If perverts want to feel like fully evolved wholesome healthy people - heterosexuals - quite frankly who gives a rats ass ?!

 

[Faun]

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

It's cute how you think you tripped me up when you didn't even know there was a benefit to society in adopting children -- which, by the way, isn't even mentioned in your OP that you now think tripped me up.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

The Constitution protects our rights, Zippy.

Correct.

Including the right to due process and equal protection of the law, prohibiting the states from denying same-sex couples access to marriage.

 

[kaz]

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.

So what, Captain Obvious?

LOL it's funny how you liberals all copy each other. You have the clown avatar, you jump on the Captain Obvious and repeat it. And you don't have an entire brain between you

 

[kaz]

Fucking retarded kazed as usual. You must think the GOP doesn't nominate rightwingers for president.

No, they don't. W proposed budgets that were above GDP, inflation and any other standard measure ... before ... negotiating with the Democrats. He supported No Child Gets ahead with Ted the Murderer. He pushed through a massive prescription drug welfare program for Medicare. I would cut the Federal budget by half. W is virtually you. Romney is known for ... Romneycare. You really think Romney is closer to me than you? You're the fucking retard.

Despite your hallucinations, Romney scores a C5.0 on the crowdpac scale. That makes him more Conservative than Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Lindsey Graham, and Rick Santorum.

Wow, he's more conservative than the list of who's who liberal Republicans. And you think that's a point for you? The difference between you and Romney is a crack in the wall, the difference between Romney and me is the grand canyon.

Romney is also just like the neocon Obama, who you'd have a baby for.

You are a Romney policy loving retard, it's just the "R" that bothers you, which is why you are a Romney clown. You should keep the avatar, it pegs you

 

[kaz]

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.

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

My clown?? You voted for him, not me.



You're the gift that keeps on givin'.

You still can't show anything Romney does that you actually oppose. Even Romney/Obamacare. And Romney if anything is less militaristic than Obama.

You're the Romney clown, the only difference is the two of you want to be in different clown cars while you drive down the same road towards the same destination