Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[NYcarbineer]

Great- so your problem is just with your bigotry towards homosexuals.

Reproduction is just another tool you abuse in order to attack homosexuals because of your bigotry.

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.

Then adoptive parents should receive the same dose of discrimination you want gays to get.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No marriage law in this country has a child requirement of any sort. That is all you need to know to know that the OP and everyone who agrees with him are full of shit. Aka wrong. Period.

 

[Pop23]

No marriage law in this country has a child requirement of any sort. That is all you need to know to know that the OP and everyone who agrees with him are full of shit. Aka wrong. Period.

Well, in a strange way there are as has been pointed out by WorldWatcher and SeaWytch.

Several areas in this country allow first cousins to marry if they can prove they CAN NOT PROCREATE.

I guess those laws will need to change because, if same sex marriage becomes law, this as well as other relationships that are classically defind as incestuous would be discriminatory based on gender.

Hmmmmmm

 

[kaz]

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?

OK, I'll answer your questions one more time. After that when you ask me again, I'm just going to call you stupid.

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

Turn on your brain for a half a second and the answer to your question is obvious. How would it be otherwise? Marriage is you get married, spend time together, then you have kids. Interestingly Seawytch supported that with that 90% of marriages have kids. So it's a pretty good average.

How is it possible to not grant marriage to childless straight couples? How would you know they aren't going to want or be able to have kids? You wait until the baby is born? What if it dies? Then do you take it away? The idea you don't grant marriage until after the sex and kids is stupid. That isn't the "concept of marriage" and if you are denying you know that, then you are just a liar.

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

The childless straight couple was one of the unfortunate 10% of straight marriages that don't result in kids. The childless gay couple was one of the unfortunate 100% of gay couples that don't result in kids. There are no guarantees in life. You have to take chances. But betting on certain failure isn't taking a chance.

- OK, I answered your question yet again. Here's the deal. You can build on my answer and rebut it. But if you ignore it again and ask the question, I'm going to just seriously fuck with you from here on out. You are getting tired, kiddie

1. Why not support denying joint filing to all childless couples regardless of sexual orientation? That's the tax break you're concerned about.

2. What's the material reproductive difference between a same sex couple and opposite sex couple wherein one or both of the partners is sterile?

"OK, I'll answer your questions one more time. After that when you ask me again, I'm just going to call you stupid."

You are stupid

 

[kaz]

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.

Hmmm . . . . yeah, they are all flawed. They have too small of a sample size, or the subjects are self-selected or a dozen other flaws. You see, when some homosexual biologists or psychologist is conducting a "study," his intent is to advance the homosexual agenda, not uncover the truth. They don't give a damn about science.

Seawytch proves that with comments like that studies prove there is no difference. No scientist who ever did a real study would make such a sweeping statement. Studies can only not show differences using certain measurements under certain conditions. Studies cannot prove there is no difference and no one who understands science and statistics would say that it did.

Obviously there are men and women in the world. That is how we evolved. Sure, kids of gay couples can turn out fine. My dad was a dead beat who left when I was five. My brother, sister and I all have multiple graduate degrees. Yet clearly we all have had to compensate for not having a steady father relationship. Ideal is one of each. We should not move beyond ideal until we have to

lol, so your own life is evidence for the opposite side of the argument you're trying to make.

You have no logical ability at all

 

[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

Why should a man/woman marriage where the man is sterile, and the wife has a baby from a sperm donor

get to file jointly?

"OK, I'll answer your questions one more time. After that when you ask me again, I'm just going to call you stupid"

You are stupid

 

[kaz]

Why should we do that, just so queers feel better about themselves? Why don't the queers come out for such a bill?

It's kaz's idea, not mine, only in his idea he gets to discriminate against gay people.

Strawman, I oppose discrimination against gays. They should be left alone to live their lives. It's their wanting me to pay for their gay fucking I oppose. It's not discriminating against someone to nnot pay them to fuck. Sorry, kiddie. Gays should fuck on their own dime

In kaz's dementia, if your widowed grandma finds a new husband, she and he can file jointly. If your widowed grandmother marries a woman, they can't file jointly.

You explain why that is not retarded.

Retarded is thinking two women are "married." I have no objection to them thinking that, but most people don't. Which is why you have to keep going to the courts to decree criminal fiats to get your way

 

[kaz]

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?

OK, I'll answer your questions one more time. After that when you ask me again, I'm just going to call you stupid.

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

Turn on your brain for a half a second and the answer to your question is obvious. How would it be otherwise? Marriage is you get married, spend time together, then you have kids. Interestingly Seawytch supported that with that 90% of marriages have kids. So it's a pretty good average.

How is it possible to not grant marriage to childless straight couples? How would you know they aren't going to want or be able to have kids? You wait until the baby is born? What if it dies? Then do you take it away? The idea you don't grant marriage until after the sex and kids is stupid. That isn't the "concept of marriage" and if you are denying you know that, then you are just a liar.

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

The childless straight couple was one of the unfortunate 10% of straight marriages that don't result in kids. The childless gay couple was one of the unfortunate 100% of gay couples that don't result in kids. There are no guarantees in life. You have to take chances. But betting on certain failure isn't taking a chance.

- OK, I answered your question yet again. Here's the deal. You can build on my answer and rebut it. But if you ignore it again and ask the question, I'm going to just seriously fuck with you from here on out. You are getting tired, kiddie

1. Why not support denying joint filing to all childless couples regardless of sexual orientation? That's the tax break you're concerned about.

Why should we do that, just so queers feel better about themselves? Why don't the queers come out for such a bill?

It's kaz's idea, not mine, only in his idea he gets to discriminate against gay people.

In kaz's dementia, if your widowed grandma finds a new husband, she and he can file jointly. If your widowed grandmother marries a woman, they can't file jointly.

You explain why that is not retarded.

Do you consider incarcerating criminals to be discrimination ? - all people should be equally incarcerated

Do you consider treating Drug Addicts to be discrimination ? - all people clean or addicted should have to go through Rehab aka Behavioral modifictaion

Do you pat a heroin fiend on the back and say there there little fella - you should be a proud Junkie - I think not

Neither should one pat a queer on the back and say there there little fella you should be a proud queer.

Great post, Green Bean. I'm already declaring it over NYCarbineer's head though, he doesn't get far simpler points than this

 

[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

I'm just reminding everyone how wrong you are on this.

He's playing with percentages, but should be looking at the actual numbers. The number of married straight couples without children is far, far greater than the number of gay couples without them.

He's a bigot that doesn't like the way gays have sex.

My view is that no marriage should be a government marriage. I said at least I get the "concept" of marriage. The Concept of marriage is that people accept those odds. My agreeing with that or not is irrelevant and what you said doesn't contradict my personal views, so it is irrelevant

 

[kaz]

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

I'm just reminding everyone how wrong you are on this.

He's playing with percentages, but should be looking at the actual numbers. The number of married straight couples without children is far, far greater than the number of gay couples without them.

He's a bigot that doesn't like the way gays have sex.

Of course there are far more opposite couples than same sex couples, the numbers would have to be much larger since the disparity is 96% to 4%.

Statistics are normally done by percentage in any case, so if you have a point, do so in a relevent basis.

You're right...there is no point to this ridiculous discussion. There are far, far (by the hundreds of thousands) more "subsidized" straight married couples not having kids than there are gay "subsidized" married couples.

Looks like you're catching on to how silly anti gay bigots arguments are...and how easily they fail.

Actually what you are proving is that you are a gay Nazi

 

[kaz]

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

I'm just reminding everyone how wrong you are on this.

He's playing with percentages, but should be looking at the actual numbers. The number of married straight couples without children is far, far greater than the number of gay couples without them.

He's a bigot that doesn't like the way gays have sex.

Of course there are far more opposite couples than same sex couples, the numbers would have to be much larger since the disparity is 96% to 4%.

Statistics are normally done by percentage in any case, so if you have a point, do so in a relevent basis.

You're right...there is no point to this ridiculous discussion. There are far, far (by the hundreds of thousands) more "subsidized" straight married couples not having kids than there are gay "subsidized" married couples.

Looks like you're catching on to how silly anti gay bigots arguments are...and how easily they fail.

You acuse others of playing with percentages, then do so yourself?

It's your dishonesty (obviously so you can acuse others of being a bigot) that is so troubling.

And yet, opposite sex coupling produce taxpayers. All taxpayers are a result of same. So it would appear a tax break would be appropriate.

The OP's question is about same sex coupling, which has never created a tax payer.

LOL, now there's a guy who gets my OP post.

Same arguments leftists use with illegal immigration, right pop? You caught them in another lie, that wasn't their standard, was it?

 

[kaz]

OK, I'll answer your questions one more time. After that when you ask me again, I'm just going to call you stupid.

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

Turn on your brain for a half a second and the answer to your question is obvious. How would it be otherwise? Marriage is you get married, spend time together, then you have kids. Interestingly Seawytch supported that with that 90% of marriages have kids. So it's a pretty good average.

How is it possible to not grant marriage to childless straight couples? How would you know they aren't going to want or be able to have kids? You wait until the baby is born? What if it dies? Then do you take it away? The idea you don't grant marriage until after the sex and kids is stupid. That isn't the "concept of marriage" and if you are denying you know that, then you are just a liar.

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

The childless straight couple was one of the unfortunate 10% of straight marriages that don't result in kids. The childless gay couple was one of the unfortunate 100% of gay couples that don't result in kids. There are no guarantees in life. You have to take chances. But betting on certain failure isn't taking a chance.

- OK, I answered your question yet again. Here's the deal. You can build on my answer and rebut it. But if you ignore it again and ask the question, I'm going to just seriously fuck with you from here on out. You are getting tired, kiddie

1. Why not support denying joint filing to all childless couples regardless of sexual orientation? That's the tax break you're concerned about.

Why should we do that, just so queers feel better about themselves? Why don't the queers come out for such a bill?

It's kaz's idea, not mine, only in his idea he gets to discriminate against gay people.

In kaz's dementia, if your widowed grandma finds a new husband, she and he can file jointly. If your widowed grandmother marries a woman, they can't file jointly.

You explain why that is not retarded.

Do you consider incarcerating criminals to be discrimination ? - all people should be equally incarcerated

Do you consider treating Drug Addicts to be discrimination ? - all people clean or addicted should have to go through Rehab aka Behavioral modifictaion

Do you pat a heroin fiend on the back and say there there little fella - you should be a proud Junkie - I think not

Neither should one pat a queer on the back and say there there little fella you should be a proud queer.

So you think gay bank robbers should get longer sentences than straight ones.

Goddam that's funny.

What's Goddam funny is that you got that point out of his post. As I said, you have zero logical capability

 

[Pop23]

I'm just reminding everyone how wrong you are on this.

He's playing with percentages, but should be looking at the actual numbers. The number of married straight couples without children is far, far greater than the number of gay couples without them.

He's a bigot that doesn't like the way gays have sex.

Of course there are far more opposite couples than same sex couples, the numbers would have to be much larger since the disparity is 96% to 4%.

Statistics are normally done by percentage in any case, so if you have a point, do so in a relevent basis.

You're right...there is no point to this ridiculous discussion. There are far, far (by the hundreds of thousands) more "subsidized" straight married couples not having kids than there are gay "subsidized" married couples.

Looks like you're catching on to how silly anti gay bigots arguments are...and how easily they fail.

You acuse others of playing with percentages, then do so yourself?

It's your dishonesty (obviously so you can acuse others of being a bigot) that is so troubling.

And yet, opposite sex coupling produce taxpayers. All taxpayers are a result of same. So it would appear a tax break would be appropriate.

The OP's question is about same sex coupling, which has never created a tax payer.

LOL, now there's a guy who gets my OP post.

Same arguments leftists use with illegal immigration, right pop? You caught them in another lie, that wasn't their standard, was it?

The creation of population is the most ignored question in this entire debate.

Only opposite sex coupling produce population. Without population there is no need for a government, and we question if same sex coupling should get tax benefits when the contribution is zero?

Seems another paradox.

 

[kaz]

No marriage law in this country has a child requirement of any sort. That is all you need to know to know that the OP and everyone who agrees with him are full of shit. Aka wrong. Period.

No one said anything contrary to this. You really don't understand the discussion, do you, Junior?

 

[GreenBean]

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

I'm just reminding everyone how wrong you are on this.

He's playing with percentages, but should be looking at the actual numbers. The number of married straight couples without children is far, far greater than the number of gay couples without them.

He's a bigot that doesn't like the way gays have sex.

Of course there are far more opposite couples than same sex couples, the numbers would have to be much larger since the disparity is 96% to 4%.

Statistics are normally done by percentage in any case, so if you have a point, do so in a relevent basis.

You're right...there is no point to this ridiculous discussion. There are far, far (by the hundreds of thousands) more "subsidized" straight married couples not having kids than there are gay "subsidized" married couples.

Looks like you're catching on to how silly anti gay bigots arguments are...and how easily they fail.

Actually what you are proving is that you are a gay Nazi

FemiNazi - the 60s feminists and their current avatars are excretions of lesbianism.

 

[Faun]

Why should we do that, just so queers feel better about themselves? Why don't the queers come out for such a bill?

It's kaz's idea, not mine, only in his idea he gets to discriminate against gay people.

Strawman, I oppose discrimination against gays. They should be left alone to live their lives. It's their wanting me to pay for their gay fucking I oppose. It's not discriminating against someone to nnot pay them to fuck. Sorry, kiddie. Gays should fuck on their own dime

In kaz's dementia, if your widowed grandma finds a new husband, she and he can file jointly. If your widowed grandmother marries a woman, they can't file jointly.

You explain why that is not retarded.

Retarded is thinking two women are "married." I have no objection to them thinking that, but most people don't. Which is why you have to keep going to the courts to decree criminal fiats to get your way

Not gonna happen since the 14th Amendment secures equal protection under the law. Meaning if you're paying for straight folks to fuck, you're also going to pay for gay folks to fuck.

 

[Pop23]

Why should we do that, just so queers feel better about themselves? Why don't the queers come out for such a bill?

It's kaz's idea, not mine, only in his idea he gets to discriminate against gay people.

Strawman, I oppose discrimination against gays. They should be left alone to live their lives. It's their wanting me to pay for their gay fucking I oppose. It's not discriminating against someone to nnot pay them to fuck. Sorry, kiddie. Gays should fuck on their own dime

In kaz's dementia, if your widowed grandma finds a new husband, she and he can file jointly. If your widowed grandmother marries a woman, they can't file jointly.

You explain why that is not retarded.

Retarded is thinking two women are "married." I have no objection to them thinking that, but most people don't. Which is why you have to keep going to the courts to decree criminal fiats to get your way

Not gonna happen since the 14th Amendment secures equal protection under the law. Meaning if you're paying for straight folks to fuck, you're also going to pay for gay folks to fuck.

Nobody pays anyone to "fuck". That's prostitution.

Showing how low your ability to discuss issues has stooped

 

[Faun]

I'm just reminding everyone how wrong you are on this.

He's playing with percentages, but should be looking at the actual numbers. The number of married straight couples without children is far, far greater than the number of gay couples without them.

He's a bigot that doesn't like the way gays have sex.

Of course there are far more opposite couples than same sex couples, the numbers would have to be much larger since the disparity is 96% to 4%.

Statistics are normally done by percentage in any case, so if you have a point, do so in a relevent basis.

You're right...there is no point to this ridiculous discussion. There are far, far (by the hundreds of thousands) more "subsidized" straight married couples not having kids than there are gay "subsidized" married couples.

Looks like you're catching on to how silly anti gay bigots arguments are...and how easily they fail.

You acuse others of playing with percentages, then do so yourself?

It's your dishonesty (obviously so you can acuse others of being a bigot) that is so troubling.

And yet, opposite sex coupling produce taxpayers. All taxpayers are a result of same. So it would appear a tax break would be appropriate.

The OP's question is about same sex coupling, which has never created a tax payer.

LOL, now there's a guy who gets my OP post.

Hey, look at that! You used "OP" as in, "Opening Post." Something I taught you ...

Faun educating kaz

... you're welcome.

 

[Faun]

Why should we do that, just so queers feel better about themselves? Why don't the queers come out for such a bill?

It's kaz's idea, not mine, only in his idea he gets to discriminate against gay people.

Strawman, I oppose discrimination against gays. They should be left alone to live their lives. It's their wanting me to pay for their gay fucking I oppose. It's not discriminating against someone to nnot pay them to fuck. Sorry, kiddie. Gays should fuck on their own dime

In kaz's dementia, if your widowed grandma finds a new husband, she and he can file jointly. If your widowed grandmother marries a woman, they can't file jointly.

You explain why that is not retarded.

Retarded is thinking two women are "married." I have no objection to them thinking that, but most people don't. Which is why you have to keep going to the courts to decree criminal fiats to get your way

Not gonna happen since the 14th Amendment secures equal protection under the law. Meaning if you're paying for straight folks to fuck, you're also going to pay for gay folks to fuck.

Nobody pays anyone to "fuck". That's prostitution.

Showing how low your ability to discuss issues has stooped

How exactly is me repeating kaz's words back to him a reflection on my discussion abilities?

 

[kaz]

I'm just reminding everyone how wrong you are on this.

He's playing with percentages, but should be looking at the actual numbers. The number of married straight couples without children is far, far greater than the number of gay couples without them.

He's a bigot that doesn't like the way gays have sex.

Of course there are far more opposite couples than same sex couples, the numbers would have to be much larger since the disparity is 96% to 4%.

Statistics are normally done by percentage in any case, so if you have a point, do so in a relevent basis.

You're right...there is no point to this ridiculous discussion. There are far, far (by the hundreds of thousands) more "subsidized" straight married couples not having kids than there are gay "subsidized" married couples.

Looks like you're catching on to how silly anti gay bigots arguments are...and how easily they fail.

Actually what you are proving is that you are a gay Nazi

FemiNazi - the 60s feminists and their current avatars are excretions of lesbianism.

True dat