Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[Pop23]

I wonder if the fuckwit who started this thread realizes that the definition of 'mating', the term he uses in the thread title, i.e., 'gay mating' means:

1. mating - the act of pairing a male and female for reproductive purposes

lol, of course he doesn't. That is one of a zillion characteristics he exhibits that earn him the title of 'fuckwit'.

Then that would imply that one group mates and the other simulates mating? Or imitates mating?

Gee thanks for clearing that up!

 

[Syriusly]

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.

LOL.....its like you live to parrot Rush Limbaugh.

Good to know you hate all women as much as you hate homosexuals.

Half wits and simpletons ....

Well that only explains half of you- the other half is your hate for Americans who happen to be gay.

Half wits and simpletons .... Well that only explains half of you- the other half is your hate for Americans who happen to be gay.

 

[Syriusly]

You have shown no hint of 'scientific objectivity' in any of your anti-gay rants.

any post I ever made on this forum pertaining to homosexuality that is not in some way based on scientifically proven or plausible theories.

But that is not what you were posting- was it?

You were claiming 'scientific objectivity'- and scientific objectivity does not mean any 'plausible theory'.

 

[Syriusly]

[
Here's a wager for you faggot - show me a factual post - any post I ever made on this forum pertaining to homosexuality that is not in some way based on scientifically proven or plausible theories and I will disappear - never to post here again - - you can't do it - there are none dumbass.

Okay- lets go for it you tiny dicked asshole.

Lets see the 'scientific objectivity' you claim to have:

Post #1
Today, it is nowhere to be found in Gay Propaganda Studies and whats worse the one time illustrious organization the American Psychological Association, commandeered by Gay activism openly promotes fudged results and sweeps valid findings that harm Gay activism under the carpet

 

[Syriusly]

[
Here's a wager for you faggot - show me a factual post - any post I ever made on this forum pertaining to homosexuality that is not in some way based on scientifically proven or plausible theories and I will disappear - never to post here again - - you can't do it - there are none dumbass.

And here for you limp dick is post #2- again show how you employed 'scientific objectivity' in this post


Homophobia as [a form of] intimidation is a much feared technique employed by Gay Agendaites to stifle, ridicule and in a professional sense, destroy anybody or anything that would dare oppose or even think about disagreeing with the gay agenda

 

[Syriusly]

Here's a wager for you faggot - show me a factual post - any post I ever made on this forum pertaining to homosexuality that is not in some way based on scientifically proven or plausible theories and I will disappear - never to post here again - - you can't do it - there are none dumbass.

And post #3- once again- show us how you used 'scientific objectivity' in this post


Jamming The objective of jamming is to force opponents into silence by accusations of homophobia, latent homosexual tendencies and bigotry . The purpose being to create a social stigmatization of anyone whom opposes the Agenda. Jamming is to ridicule the opponent in the eyes of the world and to evoke the "pack mentality" .

 

[Syriusly]

[
Here's a wager for you faggot - show me a factual post - any post I ever made on this forum pertaining to homosexuality that is not in some way based on scientifically proven or plausible theories and I will disappear - never to post here again - - you can't do it - there are none dumbass.

Here is one of my favorites- show us the 'scientific objectivity'- i.e. the scienfitic proof of this claim of yours

Question should be
How did this little Girl contract HIVSomewhere in the line of transmission form the initial source to this kid the odds are 999 out of 1000 that there's a slimy faggot involved and this poor kid is paying the price for perverts to get their rocks off

That is a hard number 999 out of 1000- or 99.9% chance.

Prove it. Show me the numbers which show that 99.9% that this girl got HIV because of a 'f*ggot'?

Remember- you claim that all of your posts are based upon 'scientific objectivity'- go for it.

 

[Syriusly]

Here's a wager for you faggot - show me a factual post - any post I ever made on this forum pertaining to homosexuality that is not in some way based on scientifically proven or plausible theories and I will disappear - never to post here again - - you can't do it - there are none dumbass.

This is #5- once again- show us your 'scientific objectivity' when you made this claim- in particular- I am curious what 'scientific objectivity' enables you to determine who is 'diseased' here on the USMB.


Go for it- two challenges here- to prove that this study is in any way related to what we say here- and secondly- prove your claim that anyone here is diseased.

Major Gay Marriage Study Was Fabricated Author Admits The Daily Caller

Slightly, ever so slightly OT ... but still shines on a light on the queer mindset so evident among the poor pathetic diseased little buggers on this board. Of course that excludes KAZ and Company

 

[Syriusly]

#6- once again- looking for 'scientific objectivity'- that standard you say you live by.....for this statement

Feel free to provide the scientific proof to support that claim.

A homosexual sex drive is not a sex drive at all, it is an aberration, an abnormal hideous perversion of the evolutionary process, it is a degeneration and break down in the natural process. It is not really even sex -because sex can only take place between two members of opposite genders - the closest adjective in English to describe homosexual activity is Sodomy

 

[TemplarKormac]

the other half is your hate for Americans who happen to be gay.

There you go with that "hate" word again.

There is his hate, and then there's yours--for those who happen to disagree with gay marriage.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I wonder if the fuckwit who started this thread realizes that the definition of 'mating', the term he uses in the thread title, i.e., 'gay mating' means:

1. mating - the act of pairing a male and female for reproductive purposes

lol, of course he doesn't. That is one of a zillion characteristics he exhibits that earn him the title of 'fuckwit'.

Then that would imply that one group mates and the other simulates mating? Or imitates mating?

Gee thanks for clearing that up!

99% of all human sexual acts are for purposes other than mating. That is unique to our species, and one more reason the reproduction argument is so stupid.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

Your marriage is relevant to this thread because you said you're opposed to government marriage,

and yet, you're married.

Now why is that?

 

[RKMBrown]

the other half is your hate for Americans who happen to be gay.

There you go with that "hate" word again.

There is his hate, and then there's yours--for those who happen to disagree with gay marriage.

It's hard for a person to understand why they are being treated like they are sub-human. To make sense of it they assume you hate them. What they don't realize, is what's really going on is you fucking despise the ground they walk on and wish they were dead. Hate really isn't strong enough a word is it?

 

[Seawytch]

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?

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.

Let's check the scorecard so far:

Kids created by having sex

Kaz - 2
All gay sex in the history of humanity - 0

Wow, I'm ahead!

You're ahead in what? What do you "win", Kaz? Are the millions of babies born every year through AI or IVF the children of "losers"?

Today, approximately 1.5% of all infants born in the United States every year are conceived using Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART).
​

Do adoptive parents "lose" in your world? Oh, that's right...it's just the gay ones.

Tell us that story about how you're not an anti gay bigot again...

 

[Seawytch]

the other half is your hate for Americans who happen to be gay.

There you go with that "hate" word again.

There is his hate, and then there's yours--for those who happen to disagree with gay marriage.

Wanting to deny tax paying gay and lesbian couples the equal right to civil marriage isn't a "disagreement". It's discrimination based solely on animus. Sorry if we shorten that down to just plain old "hate".

 

[kaz]

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

Okay- I will do so- sorry.

You just consider both parties to the marriage to be government sponsored prostitutes?

We are good.

And I never said anyone was a prostitute. You did. How do prostitutes hire each other? I don't even get how you think that makes sense

According to you marriage is all about the government paying married couples for sex- prostitutes get paid for sex- the government is paying both of them for sex, hence both are prostitutes.

Or maybe porn actors.

I mean logically following your odd point of view that marriage is all about the government paying couples to have sex.

Isn't that the entire reason this is before the courts? Financial benefit?

Was this heterosexuals that brought the case? No?

You seem confused.

As Kaz has rightly stated, he is responsible for more children being born than all same sex coupling in the history of the world.

That's actually kinda awesome when you think of it!

That's actually very awesome when you think of it!!

No, asshole, marriage is not about financial benefit. Well, maybe it was for you and your wife, but you don't speak for anyone else.

Wow, that would have been a great argument ... if he said that ...

 

[kaz]

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

Okay- I will do so- sorry.

You just consider both parties to the marriage to be government sponsored prostitutes?

We are good.

And I never said anyone was a prostitute. You did. How do prostitutes hire each other? I don't even get how you think that makes sense

According to you marriage is all about the government paying married couples for sex- prostitutes get paid for sex- the government is paying both of them for sex, hence both are prostitutes.

Or maybe porn actors.

I mean logically following your odd point of view that marriage is all about the government paying couples to have sex.

Gays are only having sex if they are paid to have sex? What is that based on?

That's even a better argument to not fund gay mating. Let's stop paying them to have sex so they stop having sex and we end the whole ridiculous issue. Now you're talking!

That was based upon your idiotic claim

It's their wanting me to pay for their gay fucking I oppose.- Thats you Kaz- speaking of marriage of course- which means you believe marriage is nothing more than government sponsored prostitution.

And of course it just brings it back to:
Kaz is happy to get his government bennies and have gay couples pay for them- but he doesn't want share with them

Gays are after the money, Holmes. You work out who you are saying is a prostitute

 

[RKMBrown]

Okay- I will do so- sorry.

You just consider both parties to the marriage to be government sponsored prostitutes?

We are good.

And I never said anyone was a prostitute. You did. How do prostitutes hire each other? I don't even get how you think that makes sense

According to you marriage is all about the government paying married couples for sex- prostitutes get paid for sex- the government is paying both of them for sex, hence both are prostitutes.

Or maybe porn actors.

I mean logically following your odd point of view that marriage is all about the government paying couples to have sex.

Isn't that the entire reason this is before the courts? Financial benefit?

Was this heterosexuals that brought the case? No?

You seem confused.

As Kaz has rightly stated, he is responsible for more children being born than all same sex coupling in the history of the world.

That's actually kinda awesome when you think of it!

That's actually very awesome when you think of it!!

No, asshole, marriage is not about financial benefit. Well, maybe it was for you and your wife, but you don't speak for anyone else.

Wow, that would have been a great argument ... if he said that ...

He has said it many times.

 

[RKMBrown]

Okay- I will do so- sorry.

You just consider both parties to the marriage to be government sponsored prostitutes?

We are good.

And I never said anyone was a prostitute. You did. How do prostitutes hire each other? I don't even get how you think that makes sense

According to you marriage is all about the government paying married couples for sex- prostitutes get paid for sex- the government is paying both of them for sex, hence both are prostitutes.

Or maybe porn actors.

I mean logically following your odd point of view that marriage is all about the government paying couples to have sex.

Gays are only having sex if they are paid to have sex? What is that based on?

That's even a better argument to not fund gay mating. Let's stop paying them to have sex so they stop having sex and we end the whole ridiculous issue. Now you're talking!

That was based upon your idiotic claim

It's their wanting me to pay for their gay fucking I oppose.- Thats you Kaz- speaking of marriage of course- which means you believe marriage is nothing more than government sponsored prostitution.

And of course it just brings it back to:
Kaz is happy to get his government bennies and have gay couples pay for them- but he doesn't want share with them

Gays are after the money, Holmes. You work out who you are saying is a prostitute

As have you, you lying piece of dog shit.

 

[kaz]

I see no difference between a gay couple who chooses to- or not to- have children- and to get married- or not get married and

a straight couple who is infertile- and chooses to- or not to- have children- and to get married - or not get married

The gay couple wasn't having children either ex-post or ex-ante. The straight couple was 90% having children ex-ante. Decisions have to be made ex-ante, not ex-post. You keep ignoring my pointing that out. How do you go back and change the upfront choice?