Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.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
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?
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
[
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
[
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
Without that your entire argument falls apartNYcarbineer said: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.
Thank you for conceding you were wrong.
"Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?"
The mistake you make is to incorrectly perceive the issue as having something to do with same-sex couples only, which in fact is not the case; nothing 'special' is being afforded to gay Americans
You do want to discriminate because you're willing to 'pay' heterosexuals to fuck while not paying gays.
You want the tax benefits for heteros to remain but you want gays not to be able to marry and get them,
even when the heteros are just as non-reproductive as the gays.
OK, I'll answer your questions one more time. After that when you ask me again, I'm just going to call you stupid
[
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
See this is what makes you a retard. The judiciary is not criminal.
Your lack of understanding of the Constitution is beyond comical.
Of course it applies since marriage is a fundamental right in the pursuit of happiness.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.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
Repeating a strawman doesn't make it true, sparky
The 14 doesn't apply since being gay does not change who you can marry for any gay.
Note that is fundamentally different than where for blacks being black changed who they could marry for every black.
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.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.
Then adoptive parents should receive the same dose of discrimination you want gays to get.
[
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
See this is what makes you a retard. The judiciary is not criminal.
Your lack of understanding of the Constitution is beyond comical.
The Judiciary is clearly criminal when they legislate from the bench. They have zero Constitutional authority to do that
"Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?"
The mistake you make is to incorrectly perceive the issue as having something to do with same-sex couples only, which in fact is not the case; nothing 'special' is being afforded to gay Americans
Gays are cutting through the rule of law and getting gay government marriage by judicial fiat rather than convincing anyone. That is clearly "something special." And it's wrong
FemiNazi - the 60s feminists and their current avatars are excretions of lesbianism.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
Without that your entire argument falls apartNYcarbineer said: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 it doesn't, that's just stupid. They had marriage without kids long before gays wanted to get paid to screw.
t
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
Of course it applies since marriage is a fundamental right in the pursuit of happiness
Being black changed who they could marry for every black. Being gay changed who they could marry for not a single gay. Argument is a fail from the startLoving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967): “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
A requirement of that right is marrying the person who offers you the chance of happiness. Getting married to someone you don't love merely because they're of the opposite gender and that is all you think should be allowed does not meet that requirement.
Don't believe me? Just watch how the U.S. Supreme Court rules on the matter.
No one really cares if you like it or not.Of course it applies since marriage is a fundamental right in the pursuit of happiness
That's stupid, the idea of positive rights as "rights" is an oxymoron, no one has the right to demand things from other, it infringes on their rights
Being black changed who they could marry for every black. Being gay changed who they could marry for not a single gay. Argument is a fail from the startLoving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967): “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
A requirement of that right is marrying the person who offers you the chance of happiness. Getting married to someone you don't love merely because they're of the opposite gender and that is all you think should be allowed does not meet that requirement.
Don't believe me? Just watch how the U.S. Supreme Court rules on the matter.
Begging the question. The supreme court is right because it says it is. Yeah. How's the Dred Scott case work out for you that the Supreme Court is infallible?
[
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
See this is what makes you a retard. The judiciary is not criminal.
Your lack of understanding of the Constitution is beyond comical.
The Judiciary is clearly criminal when they legislate from the bench. They have zero Constitutional authority to do that
You clearly are wrong. The Judiciary doesn't legislate from the bench- that is merely the claim made by frustrated Conservatives when Judges rule in ways they don't approve of.
But when they agree with Judges- well thats just good judicial reasoning.
LOL
