Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[Steinlight]

Our population is growing up 10% in the last 10 years. So no, its not a problem we're facing. And you've already shown your hand with your 'immoral degenerates' and 'disgusting faggots' nonsense, bigot.



What is the issue? They don't want to have straight sex, so they are 'immoral degenerates' and 'disgusting faggots'? That's just arbitrary name calling and pointless bigotry.

Worse, if their issues are biological, as you claim, then what's the issue with their lifestyle being 'promoted'? Does someone watching a same sex wedding have the DNA changed so that they suddenly become gay? Of course not.

So far you've established no reason to oppose them. Or same sex marriage.

I didn't say lesbian 'couples'. I said gays and lesbians. And yes, they have their own genetic children all the time through surrogacy or invetro fertilization. Absolutely obliterating your 'genetic dead end' nonsense.

As yes, a biological child of a lesbian or gay man has their parents DNA.


What human behavior? As you just acknowledged, gay marriage isn't going to make someone who isn't gay 'get gay married'. So what behavior are you speaking of?


Damn....you're still butt hurt about that spanking I gave you regarding incarceration and crime. Just because I made you back pedal and abandon your argument doesn't mean we can't be civil.

It isn't growing fast enough, and the deficit from below replacement birth rates has required immigration to fill the void. So yes, it is a problem. You need to learn what below replacement birthrates are. Most European societies are below 2.1, the replacement rate, and closer to one, and the US is 1.8.

Yes, I am a bigot, that isn't and argument against the population growth or gay marriage, that is a purely emotional argument.

It isn't arbitrary, they are defective and abnormal. And under our shared Christian morality and basic human nature, the depravity of the homosexual,r.

Listen- I don't share any of your depraved 'Christian morality' with you.

Your bigoted and arbitrary hatred of homosexuals is frankly immaterial.
I find your attitude far more depraved than that of any two homosexuals who step up and offer to parent children abandoned by their biological parents.

I don't care if you don't share it, I am not looking to compromise with social pariahs like you.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

STEINLIGHT SAID:

"They aren't a legitimate class. If sexual preference is a legitimate class that is offered legal protection, than you have to offer it to pedophiles as well."

Wrong.

This fails as a false comparison fallacy.

Per Romer and Lawrence homosexuals manifest as a class of persons entitled to Constitutional protections, their rights to choice and privacy guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, in the context of relationships between two consenting adult partners.

This is not the case with pedophiles, whose victims are children incapable of giving consent.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

STEINLIGHT SAID:

“[The population] isn't growing fast enough, and the deficit from below replacement birth rates has required immigration to fill the void. So yes, it is a problem.”

This fails as a red herring fallacy.

Whether population growth is a 'problem' or not has no bearing whatsoever on the right of same-sex couples to access marriage law they're eligible to participate in.

Infertile opposite-sex couples are allowed to marry, and older married couples are not compelled to divorce; the ability to procreate is not a prerequisite for marriage.

 

[Steinlight]

STEINLIGHT SAID:

"They aren't a legitimate class. If sexual preference is a legitimate class that is offered legal protection, than you have to offer it to pedophiles as well."

Wrong.

This fails as a false comparison fallacy.

Per Romer and Lawrence homosexuals manifest as a class of persons entitled to Constitutional protections, their rights to choice and privacy guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, in the context of relationships between two consenting adult partners.

This is not the case with pedophiles, whose victims are children incapable of giving consent.

I don't care what some faggot in a black robe says. It is not a false comparison fallacy. Pedophilia is a sexual orientation just like homosexuality. If you cannot deny service to a homosexual, you cannot deny services to an admitted pedophile. I am not talking about a pedophile having sex with the child, I am talking about the orientation. By your standard, someone who admits to such feelings, absent acting on them, cannot be discriminated against. That is conclusion of prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Regardless of what the court says, it is a ridiculous notion, and even by gay case law, it could very well be overturned by the Supreme Court with they side with traditional marriage in the upcoming ruling. My opinion on judges and the Supreme Court is the same as Andrew Jackson's, they made the ruling, let them enforce it.

 

[Steinlight]

STEINLIGHT SAID:

“[The population] isn't growing fast enough, and the deficit from below replacement birth rates has required immigration to fill the void. So yes, it is a problem.”

This fails as a red herring fallacy.

Whether population growth is a 'problem' or not has no bearing whatsoever on the right of same-sex couples to access marriage law they're eligible to participate in.

You are the only one making a red herring you insipid little nerd. I never tied gay marriage to the declining population rate. The person I responded to said there is no underpopulation issue. But there is, if you look at birthrate being below replacement rate.

 

[Skylar]

You can keep repeating this rehashed argument.

Yeah but its a pretty good argument. Our population is increasing by 10% a decade. It kicks the shit out of any 'decreasing population' argument. Especially since we do have immigration. Our growth rate is virtually identical to what it was 20 years ago when the birthrate was 2.08.

Clearly there's an issue you're missing.

Worse, you can't establish any causative relationship between gay marriage and a lowering birthrate. You merely assert it must be so.....because you say so. And you're nobody.

You are the only one making labels like bigot. But that isn't an argument.

Its a label you've admitted to. And again, its an impeachment of your source: you. You keep citing yourself. And your source (you) is bigoted, rabidly anti-gay, spectacularly uninformed, and openly biased.

Rendering your citations of yourself merely subjective personal opinion from an admitted biased, anti-gay bigot. Which is objectively meaningless.

See how that works? As long as you're citing yourself as your source, the naked bias and lack of objectivity of your source is immediately relevant.

The statistics show those growing up in homosexual households are measurably more dysfunctional than their peers from heterosexual households. This isn't my bigotry, this is from their self-reporting as adults after the fact.
Family Research Council

The Family Research Council? That's an openly anti-gay organization. And they're quoting a lone study that has some serious methodology problems. As noted by the American Medical Assocation when they reviewed the study:

... The data does not show whether the perceived romantic relationship ever in fact occurred; nor whether the parent self-identified as gay or lesbian; nor whether the same sex relationship was continuous, episodic, or one-time only; nor whether the individual in these categories was actually raised by a homosexual parent (children of gay fathers are often raised by their heterosexual mothers following divorce), much less a parent in a long-term relationship with a same-sex partner. Indeed, most of the participants in these groups spent very little, if any, time being raised by a “same-sex couple.”

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2012/07/10/12-15388_Amicus_Brief_Psychological.pdf

With the AMA finding the study's methodology scientifically unsound.

The study you cite compares intact heterosexual relationships with same sex unions that formed AFTER a heterosexual relationship had already collapsed. Which the author then uses to make conclusions about intact same sex unions.

Um, that's bullshit. Even the author's chair at his college denounced the paper and its methodolgy for just such reasons. The author is openly against gay marriage, is fiercely catholic (going so far as to say that your faith should influence what you teach and research), and had the paper funded by not one but TWO conservative think tank. And the author continued to dig himself a hole with these lovely comments after the paper's release:

"If gay marriage is perceived as legitimate by heterosexual women, it will eventually embolden boyfriends everywhere, and not a few husbands, to press for what men have always historically wanted but were rarely allowed: sexual novelty in the form of permission to stray without jeopardizing their primary relationship"....

....In addition, he claims the "normalization of gay men's sexual behavior" in society will prompt a surge in the "practice of heterosexual anal sex."

And this lovely gem:

“I think that marriage is essentially a union between a man and a woman. It’s intended to be permanent.” When asked whether marriage should include same-sex couples, he said, “I don’t think it’s a good idea,” basing his opinion on an “historically stable” definition of “marriage.”

The study is so poorly done that hen presented as evidence in court, it was rejected for its flaws and obvious bias. But its perfect fodder for the Family Research Council and fellow bigots like yourself.

And of course you ignore the largest study if its kind ever done, without any of the methodological flaws that your study did:

Children of same-sex couples fare better when it comes to physical health and social well-being than children in the general population, according to researchers at the University of Melbourne in Australia.

Children of same-sex couples are happier and healthier than peers research shows - The Washington Post

But you ignore it beceause it doesn't say what you want to say. While clinging to a study with profound flaws. For crying out loud, the author admitted that MORE THAN HALF of the 'same sex households' he cited, the children he measured had never actually lived in.

How can you be measuring the effects of same sex households on children.....when half of your children in the 'same sex parent' sample never lived in a same sex household?

Obviously you can't.

Yes, I am trying to impose my views into law, you are trying to impose yours.

You're trying to impose your RELIGIOUS views on the law. And that's not something I'm doing. Our laws aren't bound by your personal religious interpretations. Christianity isn't the sole basis of morality. Nor is there anything that mandates its a valid basis.

Your subjective religious beliefs are not the basis of our laws. Nor should be.

I never argued gay marriage makes straight people gay marry, so again, this is something you have created in your mind. You have an odd habit of doing this.

And again, Captain strawman...I've never argued that. And I've challenged you to quote me doing so, or arguing that you did.

You can't. You're done.

It is not based purely on genetic variation, or purely on environmental variation. What I asked you was a simple question, and you have yet to provide no answer. you just continue repeating yourself and ignoring the question. Why is homosexuality different than other human behavior, and purely based on genetic variation, and if so, what is your proof?

Where have I said that being gay is based purely on genetic variation? Again, Captain strawman, quote me.

You have yet to tell us anything connecting gays 'promoting the gay lifestyle' by getting married......and the sexuality of straight people.

You are autistic, and definitely socially off. You are an emotionally driven woman that spends most your time on online boards repeating yourself. You are almost definitely ugly and fat, and without a husband, who you would be happier with.

Dude, you accuse everyone of 'autism'. Its your go to insult and your tell. It how we know your argument just broke.And sure enough, since you started using it, your argument has degraded into useless strawmen and assumed causation without evidence.

And don't bother with the silly insults. I genuinely don't care what you think. So whatever emotional reaction you're trying to illicit is wasted effort.

Society is more nihilistic and atomized(I didn't say marriage becomes more atomized), relationships are more dysfunctional than they have been in the past(look at divorce rates, lower birthrates, more bastardy, more mental illness, depression, anxiety, isolation, less community participation, lower trust; for this read Putnam's work and the Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey and US Census data), this apathy and social indifference is paralleled by the rise in the homosexual rights movement, the movement is a result of a society plagued by moral indifference and atomization, people losing a sense of community and traditional relationship norms.

Holy run on sentence, batman!

Your argument is still breaking in the exact same spot: you can't establish causation. You assume causation. But you can't back that up with evidence, instead offering us a vague coexistence as demonstrating cause. But that's now how causation works. It would be like arguing that the TV show 'Friends' caused the economic boom of the mid 90s, because there was a parallel to the show being on the air and economic expansion.

Co-existence does not mean causation. Yet you keep arguing that it does. Your methodology is crap.

Worse, we have explicit contradictions of your assumptions. With Massechussetts having legalized gay marriage 10 years ago. And marriage rates being virtually unchanged. If gay marriage causes traditional marriage to 'atomize', then why didn't it?

You have no answer. You won't discuss the topic. You won't acknowledge the decade long contradiction of your assumptions. Instead, you continue to your bigotry as the basis of your argument.

No thank you.

A gay can have a biological child by having a child with a woman, a woman's egg. They cannot have a child by having gay sex and the child will not be the couple's biologically, just one of the homosexual's children. They are genetic dead ends, sexually speaking, they are not driven towards procreation, but towards a sexual relationship where the act itself cannot make children, they have to use women to have children.

Nope. Gays and lesbians have biological kids all the time through invetro-fertilization, sperm donation and surrogacy. And any gay or lesbian parent of their biological children have the same genetic investment as any heterosexual parent. As their child has half of their genes, just like the child of any heterosexual.

Your 'genetic dead end' nonsense is once again, meaningless gibber-jabber.

 

[Steinlight]

Yeah but its a pretty good argument.

Worse, you can't establish any causative relationship between gay marriage and a lowering birthrate. You merely assert it must be so.....because you say so. And you're nobody.

Its a label you've admitted to. And again, its an impeachment of your source: you. You keep citing yourself. And your source (you) is bigoted, rabidly anti-gay, spectacularly uninformed, and openly biased.

Rendering your citations of yourself merely subjective personal opinion from an admitted biased, anti-gay bigot. Which is objectively meaningless.

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2012/07/10/12-15388_Amicus_Brief_Psychological.pdf


the AMA
The study you cite compares intact heterosexual relationships with same sex unions that formed AFTER a heterosexual relationship had already collapsed. Which the author then uses to make conclusions about intact same sex unions.

Um, that's bullshit. Even the author's chair at his college denounced the paper and its methodolgy for just such reasons. The author is openly against gay marriage, is fiercely catholic (going so far as to say that your faith should influence what you teach and research), and had the paper funded by not one but TWO conservative think tank. And the author continued to dig himself a hole with these lovely comments after the paper's release:

"If gay marriage is perceived as legitimate by heterosexual women, it will eventually embolden boyfriends everywhere, and not a few husbands, to press for what men have always historically wanted but were rarely allowed: sexual novelty in the form of permission to stray without jeopardizing their primary relationship"....

....In addition, he claims the "normalization of gay men's sexual behavior" in society will prompt a surge in the "practice of heterosexual anal sex."

And this lovely gem:

“I think that marriage is essentially a union between a man and a woman. It’s intended to be permanent.” When asked whether marriage should include same-sex couples, he said, “I don’t think it’s a good idea,” basing his opinion on an “historically stable” definition of “marriage.”

The study is so poorly done that hen presented as evidence in court, it was rejected for its flaws and obvious bias. But its perfect fodder for the Family Research Council and fellow bigots like yourself.

And of course you ignore the largest study if its kind ever done, without any of the methodological flaws that your study did:

Children of same-sex couples fare better when it comes to physical health and social well-being than children in the general population, according to researchers at the University of Melbourne in Australia.

Children of same-sex couples are happier and healthier than peers research shows - The Washington Post

But you ignore it beceause it doesn't say what you want to say. While clinging to a study with profound flaws. For crying out loud, the author admitted that MORE THAN HALF of the 'same sex households' he cited, the children he measured had never actually lived in.

How can you be measuring the effects of same sex households on children.....when half of your children in the 'same sex parent' sample never lived in a same sex household?

Obviously you can't.


You're trying to impose your RELIGIOUS views on the law. And that's not something I'm doing. Our laws aren't bound by your personal religious interpretations. Christianity isn't the sole basis of morality. Nor is there anything that mandates its a valid basis.

Your subjective religious beliefs are not the basis of our laws. Nor should be.


And again, Captain strawman...I've never argued that. And I've challenged you to quote me doing so, or arguing that you did.

You can't. You're done.


Where have I said that being gay is based purely on genetic variation? Again, Captain strawman, quote me.

You have yet to tell us anything connecting gays 'promoting the gay lifestyle' by getting married......and the sexuality of straight people.

And don't bother with the silly insults. I genuinely don't care what you think. So whatever emotional reaction you're trying to illicit is wasted effort.

Society is more nihilistic and atomized(I didn't say marriage becomes more atomized), relationships are more dysfunctional than they have been in the past(look at divorce rates, lower birthrates, more bastardy, more mental illness, depression, anxiety, isolation, less community participation, lower trust; for this read Putnam's work and the Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey and US Census data), this apathy and social indifference is paralleled by the rise in the homosexual rights movement, the movement is a result of a society plagued by moral indifference and atomization, people losing a sense of community and traditional relationship norms.

Holy run on sentence, batman!

Your argument is still breaking in the exact same spot: you can't establish causation. You assume causation. But you can't back that up with evidence, instead offering us a vague coexistence as demonstrating cause. But that's now how causation works. It would be like arguing that the TV show 'Friends' caused the economic boom of the mid 90s, because there was a parallel to the show being on the air and economic expansion.

Co-existence does not mean causation. Yet you keep arguing that it does. Your methodology is crap.

A gay can have a biological child by having a child with a woman, a woman's egg. They cannot have a child by having gay sex and the child will not be the couple's biologically, just one of the homosexual's children. They are genetic dead ends, sexually speaking, they are not driven towards procreation, but towards a sexual relationship where the act itself cannot make children, they have to use women to have children.

Nope. Gays and lesbians have biological kids all the time through invetro-fertilization, sperm donation and surrogacy. And any gay or lesbian parent of their biological children have the same genetic investment as any heterosexual parent. As their child has half of their genes, just like the child of any heterosexual.

Your 'genetic dead end' nonsense is once again, meaningless gibber-jabber.

It's a bad argument. Because below replacement birth rates don't immediately result in a declining population, this takes time, lower birthrates eventually translate to a declining population overall though. There is no overpopulation issue in the United States. You don't understand what sub-replacement-fertility is so I suggest you read up on the effects more. It doesn't immediately translate into population decline. But as baby boomers continue to age and as less young people continue to be born, the population will start to decline. The only way the population decline will be offset is through immigration. There may be a third world overpopulation problem. But there is no such problem in Europe or the United States.

I never said gay marriage caused a lower birthrate, more off stuff going off in your mind. What I have said is that homosexuality and low birthrates have coincided because they are both products of hyperliberalization, this isn't a theory or my guess, this is a fact. In secular liberal society, there is less emphasis on family and procreation, and more on recreational sex. There is also less emphasis on gender norms and traditional roles/behaviors, so homosexuality is now promoted as equal to heterosexual relationships and promoted in media and culture.

Stats and observations of homosexual behavior speak for themselves, and reality is on the side of the bigots here. They are disproportionately depraved, anti-social, and mentally ill and have no place except in the closet in a healthy society.

That is a very lame cop out. But it is no surprise, the AMA is very politically charged when it comes to homosexuality, so they will engage in this behavior. The study determined homosexual parents by if the parent had a homosexual relationship, that is a totally legitimate measurement. Non-homosexuals don't have relations with the same sex. The idea that having a homosexual parent doesn't effect the child and can only affect the child if the gay parent has been in a gay relationship the entire child's live is simply dishonest, obviously it effects the child. The study is comprehensive because it includes same sex couples and those who had a gay parent, whether they were single, divorced, or perhaps married to someone of the opposite sex. So let me get this straight, so because in some of the instances the gay parent may have ended up getting divorced and the child didn't live with both parents for the whole childhood, it doesn't count. That is a joke, that is like saying they should only count the functional relationships on the part of gays, that is ridiculous. But it fits the modus operandi of previous research. Surveys before this, rather than based on children report once they entered adulthood, was based on self reporting from small samples, because we can totally trust the parents to report honestly and without bias, yea right. That University of Melbourne study is a joke, yea a totally "comprehensive" parent reported study. But yea, lets not let obvious bias get in the way of the message of "equality".

He is obviously right on the anal sex part. Normalization of homosexuality has coincided with a rise in anal sex among straight couples, this use to be an exclusively homosexual thing but through pornography the taboo has been lifted and it has become more common place.

That makes no sense, my view isn't subjective, my moral view is objective, you are the one that says morality is subjective, not me. You are confused when you apply moral relativism to me, that is what you believe, not me. I can certainly impose my moral views through law on you. Law is morality. You can't have law absent morality, law is an expression of morality, and my morality is informed by my Christian world view. So I don't know, just deal with it I guess.

You are the one who suggested it isn't logical to oppose gay marriage because it doesn't change one's DNA to gay. I never brought it up. You said:

Does someone watching a same sex wedding have the DNA changed so that they suddenly become gay? Of course not.

If you're straight, a gay couple getting married isn't gonna make you gay.

Though of course, you never proved anything about gay DNA, or that sexual preference is just determined by "gay DNA".

I never said you said homosexuality is based on genetic variation, I am asking you if you think that is the case. You have a serious problem answering basic questions. Do you think sexual preference, like other behaviors, is determined solely by genetic variation, solely by environmental variation, or a combination of both?

It is a simple question.

I already explained how they are promoting homosexuality, they are providing them the benefits heterosexual married couples receive that incentivize heterosexual marriage, they are now receiving those incentives and the two lifestyles are being legally and morally equated as the same under the law. They are also promoting homosexuality as normal by providing it legal protection under the law as a protected class through so called "anti-discrimination laws", that restrict the free exercise of religion as well.

You know I am right, you are some loser that spends all your time making pro-faggot arguments on the internet. Your life is so dysfunctional, it is no surprised you are attracted to an anti-social movement like "gay rights", dysfunctional misfits like you guys travel in packs.

I don't know how old you are, but regardless, you would be better off getting married and getting a normal life. Stop being so off putting and you could probably get a nice enough guy, even if you are ugly and overweight. You obviously care what I say, you spend all this time responding to me your entire weekend.

Do you even have anything planned for memorial day? Geez, get of the computer, make yourself up, and make some food in the kitchen(dont eat it all though) and go to a party and live a normal life.

I don't need a peer reviewed study to prove an obvious fact, the support for homosexuality has emerged out of society that has moved in the direction of social liberalism and moral relativism. The move away from sexual restraint and traditional family structures towards more libertine sexual attitudes has resulted in less children(differing children to latter and life and putting a career first) overall and more children out of wedlock. This is just common sense.

 

[bripat9643]

Not a tool, a biological reality, they are evolutionary/genetic dead ends that haven't developed the drive of attraction to procreate with the opposite sex. Their lifestyle should not be promoted.

'Immoral degenerates' and 'you disgusting faggots' isn't a biological argument. That's just your personal bigotry.

And clearly underpopulation isn't a problem we're facing. So your 'genetic dead end' logic is pointless.

Worse, many gays and lesbians use artificial insemination or surrogacy to have their own genetic children. So your logic breaks again.

And finally, unless your view of sexuality is that its a matter of marketing....with your heterosexuality just a quirk of which team got to you first, then your 'promoting your lifestyle' schtick is meaningless. If you're straight, a gay couple getting married isn't gonna make you gay.

There's just no way your argument works.

Two gay men or two lesbian women cannot have their own children as a couple. So no, you are wrong.
.

Two gay men or two lesbian women can have their own children as a couple the same way as millions of hetero couples have their own children- through sperm or egg donation, through surrogacy and through adoption.

You just whine because they are homosexuals, and you are a bigot.

It isn't "their child", genetically it is only one of the parent's child, because sperm and sperm or an egg an egg cannot make a child.

Sure is their child.

Here is a picture of Bob and Dolores Hope with their children

All 4 children adopted.

Now you would say that those children are not Bob and Dolore's children- I would say only an asshole would say such a thing- parents are the people who raise the kids- not just the ones who leave a sperm donation.

Those aren't their biological children, numskull. One thing that makes arguing with the GAYstapo so distasteful is their obsession with posting the same already exploded arguments over and over and over.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Gays can't have children, they have to use sperm and eggs. Only a female's eggs and a man's sperm can create a child. At least for now.

If gays have to use sperm and eggs to procreate, what do straight people use?

A gay couple can't procreate, it requires eggs and sperm.

A gay couple can procreate in exactly the same manner as any straight couple where one or both of the couple are infertile.

What a truly stupid argument.

By arguing that there is something wrong when gays do it- you are saying that the millions of straight Americans who use fertility assistance are somehow 'less' than hetero couples who don't need that assistance.

What a bigot.

Some have reproductive disabilities. Sad

Some fear death from childbirth. Sad

Some are elderly, not sad, but we don't discriminate based on age. (That's what bigots do)

Which of the above effect child bearing from same sex coupling?

Many simply don't want children.

Childless by Choice

 

[Seawytch]

Then don't promote their lifestyle- no one will force you to have sex with any homosexual.

Like I said- your problem is just with your bigotry towards homosexuals.

Promoting the lifestyle includes providing them government licenses for marriage, giving them tax breaks, benefits etc for their lifestyle, also the government promotes the lifestyle by forcing businesses to serve them. Society should only promote the traditional nuclear family, no polygamy, no homosexuality etc.

Society should follow its own tenets of due process of law and equal protection. There's simply no rational reason to deny gays and lesbians marriage. Nor does denying them serve a valid state interest or a legitimate legislative purpose.

Worse, it harms their children by the 10s of thousands. While benefiting no child.

Children are harmed by being adopted by homosexuals, measurably to being adopted by heterosexuals,.

Says who? You- the bigot?

The children being adopted by homosexuals are overwhelmingly either the offspring of one of them- so you would prefer to deny them a second parent- or children abandoned by their biological heterosexual parents.

It is telling that you care only about the potential harm caused by a loving couple who want to give a home to children- but not about the certain harm caused by the biological parents who abandoned them.

Children are better off with a mother and father than in a homosexual couple's home, measurably so. Whether it is by income, education attainment, criminal record(lack thereof), depression, drug use etc.

I would rather gays not make test tube babies, absolutely.

Study after study proves you wrong. Children do best in two parent households, the gender of the parents does not change the outcomes.

I'd prefer bigots like you didn't procreate and teach your brand of hate to them. Oh well.

 

[bripat9643]

Promoting the lifestyle includes providing them government licenses for marriage, giving them tax breaks, benefits etc for their lifestyle, also the government promotes the lifestyle by forcing businesses to serve them. Society should only promote the traditional nuclear family, no polygamy, no homosexuality etc.

Society should follow its own tenets of due process of law and equal protection. There's simply no rational reason to deny gays and lesbians marriage. Nor does denying them serve a valid state interest or a legitimate legislative purpose.

Worse, it harms their children by the 10s of thousands. While benefiting no child.

Children are harmed by being adopted by homosexuals, measurably to being adopted by heterosexuals,.

Says who? You- the bigot?

The children being adopted by homosexuals are overwhelmingly either the offspring of one of them- so you would prefer to deny them a second parent- or children abandoned by their biological heterosexual parents.

It is telling that you care only about the potential harm caused by a loving couple who want to give a home to children- but not about the certain harm caused by the biological parents who abandoned them.

Children are better off with a mother and father than in a homosexual couple's home, measurably so. Whether it is by income, education attainment, criminal record(lack thereof), depression, drug use etc.

I would rather gays not make test tube babies, absolutely.

Study after study proves you wrong. Children do best in two parent households, the gender of the parents does not change the outcomes.

Wrong. All your studies are little more than queer propaganda. They are all fatally flawed.

I'd prefer bigots like you didn't procreate and teach your brand of hate to them. Oh well.

Children would prefer to have a mom and a dad. Just ask them - and I don't mean your brainwashed offspring.

 

[Seawytch]

Society should follow its own tenets of due process of law and equal protection. There's simply no rational reason to deny gays and lesbians marriage. Nor does denying them serve a valid state interest or a legitimate legislative purpose.

Worse, it harms their children by the 10s of thousands. While benefiting no child.

Children are harmed by being adopted by homosexuals, measurably to being adopted by heterosexuals,.

Says who? You- the bigot?

The children being adopted by homosexuals are overwhelmingly either the offspring of one of them- so you would prefer to deny them a second parent- or children abandoned by their biological heterosexual parents.

It is telling that you care only about the potential harm caused by a loving couple who want to give a home to children- but not about the certain harm caused by the biological parents who abandoned them.

Children are better off with a mother and father than in a homosexual couple's home, measurably so. Whether it is by income, education attainment, criminal record(lack thereof), depression, drug use etc.

I would rather gays not make test tube babies, absolutely.

Study after study proves you wrong. Children do best in two parent households, the gender of the parents does not change the outcomes.

Wrong. All your studies are little more than queer propaganda. They are all fatally flawed.

Riiiiiight...close to, what, 60 studies and they're all "fatally flawed". The only "flaw" is that they don't support your ridiculous assertions. Our kids are fine. They'll be better than fine once their parents can legally marry.

 

[kaz]

What do you think that proves?

Here's one for you:

What is that divine color of lipstick you are wearing?

I don't where lipstick, queer.

Well, you must have rubbed rose petals on your lips, doll.

Are you claiming that's my picture, queer? They're a couple of dykes, like you.

Now, now, calm down, girl. Your secret is safe with me.

Liberals never do move beyond playground arguments, do you?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

Despite kaz's desperate efforts to bury his own OP, let's bring it back, and what it really says:

1. Clearly he separates opposite sex marriage from same sex marriage.

2. Clearly he singles out gay couples for not reproducing, and clearly he gives opposite sex couples a pass if they don't or cannot reproduce.

3. His main point, as a question, is:

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?

Note that it's people who have GAY sex who do not perpetuate the species, as opposed to people who have sex, gay or straight, who do not perpetuate the species.

Questions to kaz:

Why is your objection to tax benefits to childless married couples limited to childless gay couples?

What is the material difference between a childless gay couple and a childless straight couple that warrants more favorable tax treatment for the latter?

 

[Pop23]

Homosexual couples can have children without outside intervention. Every gay couple can go to a lesbian couple and have kids through surrogate procedure, also known as in vitro fertilization.

I wish there were more gays in this country to flaunt their sexuality on right wing republicans' faces.

Which would require a male

Thanks for playin

We have a nice parting gift for ya

Oh, and you probably wish there were more gays cuz, your odds would be better?

Just guessing

Well, not being a homophobe unlike most RWers, I don't even know why you'd think my "odds would be better". You just don't understand statistics. If I was gay, then having more gays would also increase the competition. It cuts both ways. Of course, most cons don't understand these basic details so I don't discuss it with them. Bye.

Thanks for the statistics lesson!

Oh, I'm a moderate

And, statistically speaking......

100% of all children born come from male/female couplings

0% of all children born come from same sex couplings.

True story.

"coupling'? I'm assuming you don't mean sex. As a man and woman need not have sex with each other for a child to be conceived.

And of course, its all starkly irrelevant to marriage. As no one is required to procreate or be able to in order to get married.

The joining of the male and female components are indeed necessary to create children.

100% of the time.

 

[Pop23]

Gays can't have children, they have to use sperm and eggs. Only a female's eggs and a man's sperm can create a child. At least for now.

If gays have to use sperm and eggs to procreate, what do straight people use?

A gay couple can't procreate, it requires eggs and sperm.

A gay couple can procreate in exactly the same manner as any straight couple where one or both of the couple are infertile.

What a truly stupid argument.

By arguing that there is something wrong when gays do it- you are saying that the millions of straight Americans who use fertility assistance are somehow 'less' than hetero couples who don't need that assistance.

What a bigot.

Some have reproductive disabilities. Sad

Some fear death from childbirth. Sad

Some are elderly, not sad, but we don't discriminate based on age. (That's what bigots do)

Which of the above effect child bearing from same sex coupling?

Many simply don't want children.

Childless by Choice

True, shall we talk about demographic groups. You brought one up afterall.

 

[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

Despite kaz's desperate efforts to bury his own OP, let's bring it back, and what it really says:

1. Clearly he separates opposite sex marriage from same sex marriage.

2. Clearly he singles out gay couples for not reproducing, and clearly he gives opposite sex couples a pass if they don't or cannot reproduce.

3. His main point, as a question, is:

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?

Note that it's people who have GAY sex who do not perpetuate the species, as opposed to people who have sex, gay or straight, who do not perpetuate the species.

Questions to kaz:

Why is your objection to tax benefits to childless married couples limited to childless gay couples?

What is the material difference between a childless gay couple and a childless straight couple that warrants more favorable tax treatment for the latter?

You ask me this question over and over and I answer it over and over. Why should I bother if you don't retain the answer? You don't like my argument so you're going to ignore it isn't an argument

 

[MathewSmith]

You forgot that marriage is not about money, it's not a financial question. It is a union that is supposed to be between two people and God. No one worries about the God's words on this subject.

 

[GreenBean]

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?

9,999.9999 queered :> Uh ... I mean squared.

 

[GreenBean]

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?

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

Arizona, to be able to Civilly Marry 1st cousins cannot be able to have children.


>>>>

Berry Berry Interesting . ... that could mean a lot less mentally retarded offspring and a whole heck of a lot less Democrats.