Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[Faun]

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

And yet, I copied no one. I called him, "Captain Obvious," because he said he was pointing out the "obvious" over something inane.

Didn't notice Seawytch using that exact term. Suuurrreeeee you didn't, clown

Inane? Children and how they're made is now inane?

I wonder how creating future taxpayers, soldiers, teachers, doctors are somehow inane?

Inane to the OP.

 

[Pop23]

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

And yet, I copied no one. I called him, "Captain Obvious," because he said he was pointing out the "obvious" over something inane.

Didn't notice Seawytch using that exact term. Suuurrreeeee you didn't, clown

Holyfuckingshit!!

The dumbfuck OP thinks seawytch invented the term, "Captain Obvious!"

It's really not that big of a deal. I love pointing out OBVIOUS flaws to progressive arguments

 

[kaz]

The family thing is gross. They are freaking family. I can't fathom it

True, but what compelling state interest is there in denying same sex heterosexual siblings from the rights and benefits of marriage? They are straight afterall, so sexual coupling CAN'T be very compelling, can it?

But then you're discriminating against same sex homosexual siblings.

It's a paradox

It wasn't an argument, just an observation. And I don't care what's in the government's interest, I care what's in the people's interest.

Also, since I oppose all government marriage, it makes it hard to answer your question anyway. I would not outlaw sex between any family members, it's retarded. However, I would outlaw having babies between family members first cousin or closer because there is a victim to that, the baby

 

[kaz]

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

And yet, I copied no one. I called him, "Captain Obvious," because he said he was pointing out the "obvious" over something inane.

Didn't notice Seawytch using that exact term. Suuurrreeeee you didn't, clown

Inane? Children and how they're made is now inane?

I wonder how creating future taxpayers, soldiers, teachers, doctors are somehow inane?

Inane to the OP.

Um, I'd prefer you don't try to speak for me. Obviously you don't know what I think. As for my OP post, he's dead on and you're wrong as well

 

[kaz]

I quoted the relevant part to show the forum how you lie, You did this when you claimed I blamed Reagan for the recession even after I told you I didn't blame him; now you're claiming I don't support polygamy even after I told you I do.

This was to show how you're kazzing.

I succeeded quite well, don'tcha think?

You fell flat on your face, this is another discussion you didn't understand. You said Reagan wasn't handed a recession, then you emphasized it with "he just wasn't." That while you said Obama wasn't responsible for the economy his first year in office, W's budget. Your explanation of how Reagan wasn't handed a recession 5 months into office while Obama wasn't responsible for a year was that the 81 recession was Volkers fault...



Who is responsible for the recession doesn't contradict my point, Reagan was handed a recession. You just think if you get the Democrat off the hook, that someone is a win for you even when you don't address the point in contention.

BTW, why did Volker raise interest rates? Was it out of the blue? LOL, you're a Romney clown, you're just in the other car while you are shooting seltzer water at each other

 

[kaz]

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

And yet, I copied no one. I called him, "Captain Obvious," because he said he was pointing out the "obvious" over something inane.

Didn't notice Seawytch using that exact term. Suuurrreeeee you didn't, clown

Holyfuckingshit!!

The dumbfuck OP thinks seawytch invented the term, "Captain Obvious!"

Strawman. I said you are copying each other. You really are an idiot. You just are

 

[Faun]

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 --

Strawman

Nope, not a strawman. You demonstrated you're under the delusion that your OP is even capable of trapping me over a subject it's not even about. I understand why you wish to dismiss that as a strawman since you look like an idiot claiming a victory over it, but this would just be yet another "kaz" moment in a long string of them.

That isn't what the thread is about, the thread is about the concept of marriage. What you said is a strawman. If only you had a brain, scarecrow, but you are a clown, as you know. And you are virtually indistinguishable from Romney. You have some, tiny measure of self awareness on that one

which, by the way, isn't even mentioned in your OP that you now think tripped me up.

Because it wasn't ... about ... that ... You realize my OP defines the thread. That you think it should have been about what you want is ... so you. The class Romney clown. But then who am I telling that to? You already know that, it's on your avatar

Your OP has long been destroyed. And get this, neither your recognition of that nor your acknowledgement are a requirement for that to be so. Everything since that has been the mere entertainment of watching you kazzing the thread.

And now I get the additional benefit from my avatar of watching you calling the rightwinger you voted for for president, a clown.

Yes, I was obliterated by Democratic talking points. I am dead and I don't even know it. I blasted you kaz! You weren't able to disprove one talking point while not violating the inherent truth of liberalism. What a schmo. You are just dancing and pretending that you you have an answer.

Umm, no, it wasn't Democrat talking points which destroyed your OP.

It was the sheer idiocy of it. In case you missed it ... you justified government subsidizing of straight marriages for the purpose of raising children .... your OP failed before the very first response because it didn't occur to you that gay marriages can also result in raising children.

OK, here are ways I disagree with Romney.

Fiscal: Romney would continue to grow government faster than any standard measure of growth, inflation, GDP, etc. So would you. So does Obama. I would slash the government by half for starters.

Military: Romney would continue our current policy. So did Obama, so would you. I would leave the middle east entirely.

Social: Romney would do nothing about government involvement in social issues. Neither would you. Neither does Obama. I would end the war on drugs and legalize all drugs, gambling, prostitution and repeal all other morality laws.

And you get out of that I'm more like the clown Romney than you. You ARE the clown Romney. As your avatar says. For once in your life, you nailed it. Ironically without getting it while you did

Who the fuck cares where you disagree with Romney?? You voted for him for president.

 

[kaz]

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

And yet, I copied no one. I called him, "Captain Obvious," because he said he was pointing out the "obvious" over something inane.

Didn't notice Seawytch using that exact term. Suuurrreeeee you didn't, clown

Holyfuckingshit!!

The dumbfuck OP thinks seawytch invented the term, "Captain Obvious!"

It's really not that big of a deal. I love pointing out OBVIOUS flaws to progressive arguments

When they don't get the obvious, it really is harder to go deeper

 

[Faun]

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

And yet, I copied no one. I called him, "Captain Obvious," because he said he was pointing out the "obvious" over something inane.

Didn't notice Seawytch using that exact term. Suuurrreeeee you didn't, clown

Holyfuckingshit!!

The dumbfuck OP thinks seawytch invented the term, "Captain Obvious!"

Strawman. I said you are copying each other. You really are an idiot. You just are

It's cute how you cry, "irrelevant" or "strawman" every time your idiocy gets exposed.

 

[kaz]

Umm, no, it wasn't Democrat talking points which destroyed your OP.

It was the sheer idiocy of it. In case you missed it ... you justified government subsidizing of straight marriages for the purpose of raising children .... your OP failed before the very first response because it didn't occur to you that gay marriages can also result in raising children.[\quote]

First of all, skippy, OP does not refer to OP as in OP ED, OP on the internet means Original Poster. It is a person. Me. Note the "OP" by my name. That is why you aren't making sense when you use the word. That's why I keep referring to my "OP post." I am the "OP."

Second, Strawman, I didn't "justif(y) tax breaks." I'm actually against them. I said the reason people think we need government marriage is children. No one thinks you need tax breaks to hold hands and go to the movies and share an apartment with your honey. The $$$ is so that you can afford to stay home and have children. Do you notice parntering without kids already saves money. That isn't what people think.

If you are saying you don't know that, you think people think tax breaks are to save you more money than already sharing expenses, then I am calling you a liar. You do know that.

As for adoption, there are tax breaks for adoption, there are also tax breaks for taking care of foster kids. You don't give marriage breaks for that, you give marriage breaks for fucking and breeding. At least that's what the concept is.

If you want to give more breaks for kids, then argue that. Your gay tax breaks are obviously not because you want them to be able to afford to adopt and have test tube babies, that is another lie. But you are full of lies. You are a clown, and you are just like the clown on your avatar. Even you can't think of any differences at all much less that approach my differences with him

 

[Faun]

I quoted the relevant part to show the forum how you lie, You did this when you claimed I blamed Reagan for the recession even after I told you I didn't blame him; now you're claiming I don't support polygamy even after I told you I do.

This was to show how you're kazzing.

I succeeded quite well, don'tcha think?

You fell flat on your face, this is another discussion you didn't understand. You said Reagan wasn't handed a recession, then you emphasized it with "he just wasn't." That while you said Obama wasn't responsible for the economy his first year in office, W's budget. Your explanation of how Reagan wasn't handed a recession 5 months into office while Obama wasn't responsible for a year was that the 81 recession was Volkers fault...



Who is responsible for the recession doesn't contradict my point, Reagan was handed a recession. You just think if you get the Democrat off the hook, that someone is a win for you even when you don't address the point in contention.

BTW, why did Volker raise interest rates? Was it out of the blue? LOL, you're a Romney clown, you're just in the other car while you are shooting seltzer water at each other

Now you're lying again.

Anyone here surprised?

I never denied Reagan was handed a recession.

 

[kaz]

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

And yet, I copied no one. I called him, "Captain Obvious," because he said he was pointing out the "obvious" over something inane.

Didn't notice Seawytch using that exact term. Suuurrreeeee you didn't, clown

Holyfuckingshit!!

The dumbfuck OP thinks seawytch invented the term, "Captain Obvious!"

Strawman. I said you are copying each other. You really are an idiot. You just are

It's cute how you cry, "irrelevant" or "strawman" every time your idiocy gets exposed.

I say strawman every time you said I said something that I didn't say. Crazy, huh?

 

[Pop23]

The family thing is gross. They are freaking family. I can't fathom it

True, but what compelling state interest is there in denying same sex heterosexual siblings from the rights and benefits of marriage? They are straight afterall, so sexual coupling CAN'T be very compelling, can it?

But then you're discriminating against same sex homosexual siblings.

It's a paradox

It wasn't an argument, just an observation. And I don't care what's in the government's interest, I care what's in the people's interest.

Also, since I oppose all government marriage, it makes it hard to answer your question anyway. I would not outlaw sex between any family members, it's retarded. However, I would outlaw having babies between family members first cousin or closer because there is a victim to that, the baby

This will lead to the end of governmental marriage. But that's for a different debate I guess.

When marriage becomes just a way to get around taxation and high insurance premiums, it will self destruct the system.

Realize hetro same sex couples can claim these prized as well.

 

[Faun]

Umm, no, it wasn't Democrat talking points which destroyed your OP.

It was the sheer idiocy of it. In case you missed it ... you justified government subsidizing of straight marriages for the purpose of raising children .... your OP failed before the very first response because it didn't occur to you that gay marriages can also result in raising children.[\quote]

First of all, skippy, OP does not refer to OP as in OP ED, OP on the internet means Original Poster. It is a person. Me. Note the "OP" by my name. That is why you aren't making sense when you use the word. That's why I keep referring to my "OP post." I am the "OP."

Second, Strawman, I didn't "justif(y) tax breaks." I'm actually against them. I said the reason people think we need government marriage is children. No one thinks you need tax breaks to hold hands and go to the movies and share an apartment with your honey. The $$$ is so that you can afford to stay home and have children. Do you notice parntering without kids already saves money. That isn't what people think.

If you are saying you don't know that, you think people think tax breaks are to save you more money than already sharing expenses, then I am calling you a liar. You do know that.

As for adoption, there are tax breaks for adoption, there are also tax breaks for taking care of foster kids. You don't give marriage breaks for that, you give marriage breaks for fucking and breeding. At least that's what the concept is.

If you want to give more breaks for kids, then argue that. Your gay tax breaks are obviously not because you want them to be able to afford to adopt and have test tube babies, that is another lie. But you are full of lies. You are a clown, and you are just like the clown on your avatar. Even you can't think of any differences at all much less that approach my differences with him

Learn how to use the quote function. Is there a reply in there?

 

[kaz]

Now you're lying again.

Anyone here surprised?

I never denied Reagan was handed a recession.

Oh, this one's going to hurt. Seriously? You realize this site has a search function. What did you say here again?

"I never denied Reagan was handed a recession"

That right, Skippy? Let's go to the video tape.

Again ... Obama inherited an economy in recession ... Reagan did not

I point out how Reagan was handed an economy which wasn't in recession (which it wasn"t)

I said Reagan didn't inherit a recession because he didn't

Oh, that's gotta hurt, even for someone ramming things up their own ass as often as you do. You are the liar, clown Romney. That is classic

 

[kaz]

Umm, no, it wasn't Democrat talking points which destroyed your OP.

It was the sheer idiocy of it. In case you missed it ... you justified government subsidizing of straight marriages for the purpose of raising children .... your OP failed before the very first response because it didn't occur to you that gay marriages can also result in raising children.[\quote]

First of all, skippy, OP does not refer to OP as in OP ED, OP on the internet means Original Poster. It is a person. Me. Note the "OP" by my name. That is why you aren't making sense when you use the word. That's why I keep referring to my "OP post." I am the "OP."

Second, Strawman, I didn't "justif(y) tax breaks." I'm actually against them. I said the reason people think we need government marriage is children. No one thinks you need tax breaks to hold hands and go to the movies and share an apartment with your honey. The $$$ is so that you can afford to stay home and have children. Do you notice parntering without kids already saves money. That isn't what people think.

If you are saying you don't know that, you think people think tax breaks are to save you more money than already sharing expenses, then I am calling you a liar. You do know that.

As for adoption, there are tax breaks for adoption, there are also tax breaks for taking care of foster kids. You don't give marriage breaks for that, you give marriage breaks for fucking and breeding. At least that's what the concept is.

If you want to give more breaks for kids, then argue that. Your gay tax breaks are obviously not because you want them to be able to afford to adopt and have test tube babies, that is another lie. But you are full of lies. You are a clown, and you are just like the clown on your avatar. Even you can't think of any differences at all much less that approach my differences with him

Learn how to use the quote function. Is there a reply in there?

You just gotta be a dick, don't you? Well, you are you, your avatar shows that.

Did you ever come up with any disagreements with Romney?

 

[kaz]

Realize hetro same sex couples can claim these prized as well.

Absolutely. And there are better solutions to every problem that government marriage supposedly solves. Taxes should be flat, the death tax should be repealed for everyone, it's evil. Job benefits should be between you and your employer, not you and Howard Dean. Couples should agree to their own financial commitment, not one mandated by government. There is no legitimate reason for any government marriage.

This thread is just to screw with liberals by applying their own standard to themselves. And they show again their hypocrisy in defending it

 

[bripat9643]

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.

How many times do I have to shoot this idiocy down before numskulls like you quit using it?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

"Marital bliss" is what results from the union of a man and a woman. No matter how endlessly you blabber, you can never change that irrefutable fact.

 

[bripat9643]

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

Non sequitur, asshole. You get married before you have a child, so how can it be a requirement to get married?