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.
Either that or a Homophobe , it's a tactic known as "jamming"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.
ROLF! The first thing a queer always does when debating one of their issues is accuse his opponent of being a queer. They are utterly lacking any sense of integrity or honor.
Jamming The objective of jamming is to force opponents into silence by accusations of homophobia, latent homosexual tendencies and bigotry .s
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
So proof one CANNOT procreate is the ticket for some to get a marriage license? lol, two men or two women should ace that test.
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.[
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
You Republicans are really off the deep end. Why can't you leave gays alone?
"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
What 'gays'?
As you keep pointing out there are no laws specifically against 'gays'- and the Supreme Court is not considering gays- they are considering whether same gender couples can marry.
Just as in Loving v. Virginia, when Virginia told whites they could marry anyone they wanted- so long as they were white, Georgia told men they could marry anyone they wanted, so long as they were the opposite gender.
The Supreme Court has ruled on state marriage prohibitions three times in the past- but only for this one state marriage law do you suddenly have an objection to the courts deciding whether the prohibitions are constitutional.
And thats wrong.
FemiNazi - the 60s feminists and their current avatars are excretions of lesbianism.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
LOL.....its like you live to parrot Rush Limbaugh.
Good to know you hate all women as much as you hate homosexuals.
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
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
Ah its so sad- Kaz thinks marriage is only about getting paid to have sex.
I wonder if his wife knows that is how he considers their marriage?
"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
What 'gays'?
As you keep pointing out there are no laws specifically against 'gays'- and the Supreme Court is not considering gays- they are considering whether same gender couples can marry.
Just as in Loving v. Virginia, when Virginia told whites they could marry anyone they wanted- so long as they were white, Georgia told men they could marry anyone they wanted, so long as they were the opposite gender.
The Supreme Court has ruled on state marriage prohibitions three times in the past- but only for this one state marriage law do you suddenly have an objection to the courts deciding whether the prohibitions are constitutional.
And thats wrong.
Gotcha, Sparky. Blacks getting shot with water cannons for wanting their kids to be able to go to decent schools and to live where they want is the same as gays not getting tax breaks for fucking. Gays are the new black. Liberals are idiots
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
Ah its so sad- Kaz thinks marriage is only about getting paid to have sex.
Strawman, I covered that
I wonder if his wife knows that is how he considers their marriage?
My wife is well aware of my views on marriage. We have an understanding. I get my view, she gets her way. She's good with that
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
And of course that proves you are an anti-gay Marxist.......
The marriage laws are (should all be) to PROTECT OUR RIGHTS not take them away.Then why have marriage laws at all. What justification do we have in regulating marriage if it has no benefits to Government or society to do so?The question is a strawman, presupposing that marriages owe society some form of benefit for some supposed subsidizing that is going on for marriages. My answer to the OP was very clear. The strawman is bullshit.So the answer is "no, you cannot answer the question of the OP."You're kidding right? You want to know what benefit society gets out of family units? Sigh.... First off why should society demand a benefit from a family unit? What the hell does any family unit "OWE" society?Can you answer the question? What benefit does society get from sanctioning gay marriage?You are very confused. You talk as if government is your GOD. As if government has handed down the decree that you shall go forth and multiply.
Just because you justify in your own haid that your child tax break is just because your child will be a good little tax payer, does not actually justify your tax break, nor does it justify you PISSING on gays for daring the want the right to marry.
Government WORKS FOR US. They are our EMPLOYEES. We use, in this case, our government employees to arbitrate contracts. For example, marriage licenses between two consenting adults. If there is a divorce, or other issue of legal matter with regard to said marriage our government employees are PAID to arbitrate said issues.
Thanks for clarifying.
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
Ah its so sad- Kaz thinks marriage is only about getting paid to have sex.
Strawman, I covered that
I wonder if his wife knows that is how he considers their marriage?
My wife is well aware of my views on marriage. We have an understanding. I get my view, she gets her way. She's good with that
So she is okay with you considering her a government sponsored prostitute?
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
.
There is no such thing as government marriage. No one MARRIES THE GOVERNMENT. Duh!Then why have marriage laws at all. What justification do we have in regulating marriage if it has no benefits to Government or society to do so?The question is a strawman, presupposing that marriages owe society some form of benefit for some supposed subsidizing that is going on for marriages. My answer to the OP was very clear. The strawman is bullshit.So the answer is "no, you cannot answer the question of the OP."You're kidding right? You want to know what benefit society gets out of family units? Sigh.... First off why should society demand a benefit from a family unit? What the hell does any family unit "OWE" society?Can you answer the question? What benefit does society get from sanctioning gay marriage?
Government WORKS FOR US. They are our EMPLOYEES. We use, in this case, our government employees to arbitrate contracts. For example, marriage licenses between two consenting adults. If there is a divorce, or other issue of legal matter with regard to said marriage our government employees are PAID to arbitrate said issues.
Thanks for clarifying.
Yes, let's eliminate government marriage. There are better solutions for everything that is supposedly solves. If we have flat taxes, no death tax which is entirely evil anyway and make things like living wills easier and cheaper and just let couples work out their own financial arrangements and agreements between each other or with whatever resources like churches they chose, then government can get out of the business of regulating morality and discriminating between it's citizens
No one really cares if you like it or not.
Oh, and your argument falls apart since they are not asking for anything from you.
Without that your entire argument falls apart
No it doesn't, that's just stupid. They had marriage without kids long before gays wanted to get paid to screw.
t
Ah its so sad- Kaz thinks marriage is only about getting paid to have sex.
Strawman, I covered that
I wonder if his wife knows that is how he considers their marriage?
My wife is well aware of my views on marriage. We have an understanding. I get my view, she gets her way. She's good with that
So she is okay with you considering her a government sponsored prostitute?
I work hard to keep family out of it. I'd appreciate the same in return. I'm not bringing up my wife, you are
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.
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.
Scientific Objectivity, is the basis of all TRUE science, . Objectivity is a basic philosophical concept, related to reality and truth. Objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings..
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
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
Stop challenging Kaz and his words!
Really its simple- Kaz has his marriage bennies- and wants gay couples to have to pay for his marriage bennies while keeping them from gay couples.
All the rest is just his rationale for why he has his and screw the gays.
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
Stop challenging Kaz and his words!
Really its simple- Kaz has his marriage bennies- and wants gay couples to have to pay for his marriage bennies while keeping them from gay couples.
All the rest is just his rationale for why he has his and screw the gays.
Here is a learning moment for both of you nit wits. As I said, my issue is not that he's "challenging" my words, it's that he keeps ignoring my responses and repeating his question. Debates involve processing responses and building on them, not ignoring them and repeating the same question endlessly.
Get it now? You don't, do you?
