Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[RKMBrown]

Yes or no, pop, gays can have kids. You can't have it both ways. You can't say one group and one group only is necessary for our species to survive then say you didn't mean gays can't have kids and we'd all be dead if everyone was gay. Make up your mind, either all groups can have kids or not.

People are not just babysitters and maids. The idea for kids is a parent of each sex. It's how we evolved The child tax breaks are for food and clothing. The marriage tax breaks are for providing them the ideal environment. I did not say in my OP post we should remove child tax breaks, I said we should remove the marriage one. With heterosexuals we may or may not get the ideal environment for children we are paying for. With gay couples, we know we are not. So if they care for the kids, we pay for that. But we get nothing for paying for the "marriage"

Are you arguing single parents should not have the tax breaks for kids that married people do? Really? So your hatred is not just for gays but also for single parents?

Stretching?

Clarifying.

Nope, that's a stretch.

Yes or no, one parent is the ideal environment. Not a stretch to ask that question. Kaz said the ideal environment is two parents of opposite sex. That is the equivalent of saying less than two parents of opposite sex is not the ideal environment. Kaz is against same sex couples, I want to know if also against single parents. Let's get it all out in the open. What punishments are we to put onto single and gay parents?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Ridiculous is the idea that we don't SEPERATE groups or individuals based on ability.

When was the last time a females best time in the 100 meter dash would have qualified for the men's olympic event?

Anyone need any more proof that gay rights have won?

WTF does that post mean?

Do you know that blind people can't get drivers licenses?

Is that discrimination?

Is the denial of the license based on ability?

Yes, it is discrimination. Liberals think discrimination is always bad, it's not always bad. It can be highly justified, like not giving a blind person a drivers license. I like to screw with them on their lack of understanding of that word

If the state can find a compelling reason, that the courts will accept, you can discriminate. The courts have looked at your reasons for denying gays the right to marry each other, and found them to be invalid. So sad, for you that is.

So discrimating is not always bad. Good

and the reason is that the blind person has all the ability to drive but one. So arguing that he should be afforded this license is not bizarre, in fact it realistic.

Thanks.

If you can find a valid reason, you can discriminate. Since no one can find one against gay marriage, you lose. That is the reality.

 

[Seawytch]

Most "coupling" doesn't produce anything beyond pleasure and bonding. It was never meant to. Human reproduction gets a free ride on sex, not the other way around.

But only opposite sex couples have to worry that the pleasure turns into a pregnancy.

Thanks for pointing out how vastly different these two groups are!

They aren't different except when intentionally trying to make a baby. Otherwise, they are all just ******* for the fun of it. Same difference.

As Seawytch pointed out, actually 90% of heterosexuals having married sex have babies. Zero percent of gays do

Wrong, bigot. 90% of married couples have children...nothing in that stat says they had their own children. In fact, about 1.5 million babies are born every year through assisted reproductive technology...like gays use to have their chidren...which they DO have, bigot.

Percentage wise that's still pretty small, and even of the adopted that doesn't mean the family didn't have more of their own children. An anecdotal story on that.

If you remember the Woody Allen movie "Radio Days," I babysat the kid who played the intelligent, nerdy kid that is mother compared him to as a kid in the movie. His family is good friends with ours. They are great people. He is a biological son of his parents, but they also adopted a son. So that family gets a pass on the "concept of marriage." LOL

Numbers-wise there are far fewer gay couples not having children than straight couples.

Your anti gay argument fails like all of them do.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

But only opposite sex couples have to worry that the pleasure turns into a pregnancy.

Thanks for pointing out how vastly different these two groups are!

They aren't different except when intentionally trying to make a baby. Otherwise, they are all just ******* for the fun of it. Same difference.

As Seawytch pointed out, actually 90% of heterosexuals having married sex have babies. Zero percent of gays do

Wrong, bigot. 90% of married couples have children...nothing in that stat says they had their own children. In fact, about 1.5 million babies are born every year through assisted reproductive technology...like gays use to have their chidren...which they DO have, bigot.

Percentage wise that's still pretty small, and even of the adopted that doesn't mean the family didn't have more of their own children. An anecdotal story on that.

If you remember the Woody Allen movie "Radio Days," I babysat the kid who played the intelligent, nerdy kid that is mother compared him to as a kid in the movie. His family is good friends with ours. They are great people. He is a biological son of his parents, but they also adopted a son. So that family gets a pass on the "concept of marriage." LOL

Numbers-wise there are far fewer gay couples not having children than straight couples.

Your anti gay argument fails like all of them do.

My three gay friends have six kids between them, while the wife and I have none. And they are married, just like I am. Progress, it's a beautiful thing.

 

[Seawytch]

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?

You and the law do not care- whether the straight couple can or cannot have children- the man could be missing his nads and you would give him the bennies without any question. Two 80 year olds get marry- and you give them bennies without question

But a gay couples raising 5 kids- you would deny them the bennies you give to the two 80 year olds.

Just because they are gay- and since the result of doing that is to take money from their family- clearly you want to harm their children also.

I hate children too. That's funny. You're losing it now. It's best for children to be in a man/woman household. It's how we evolved.

It's funny how you get all jacked out of shape over creationism, you talk about how people evolved. But when it's pointed out we also evolved with man/woman parents, nuh uh, that doesn't matter. You are just as religious as the Christians, obviously we did

No Kaz, you don' t hate children..you don't even "hate" gays...you just think about the way they have sex and you get all hinky.

You're still an anti gay bigot, just not necessarily a hateful one.

It's "best" for children to be raised in rich, white homes...good thing it's not only them that gets to have children, eh?

Once again race whoring, are you? My children didn't grow up in a "white" home, my wife is Korean. **** the shit out of you. You can't not be a race slut, can you?

Uh oh...then yours isn't the "ideal" home. You're the one claiming that straight parents are "ideal". By your logic, straight white wealthy parents are "ideal".

 

[Seawytch]

Gays marrying doesn't take anything away from heteros marrying, therefore your argument is ridiculous that the species is going to die out if gay marriage is legalized.

And btw, unmarried parents get virtually every government benefit related to children that married couples do.

Ridiculous is the idea that we don't SEPERATE groups or individuals based on ability.

When was the last time a females best time in the 100 meter dash would have qualified for the men's olympic event?

Anyone need any more proof that gay rights have won?

WTF does that post mean?

Do you know that blind people can't get drivers licenses?

Is that discrimination?

Is the denial of the license based on ability?

Yes, it is discrimination. Liberals think discrimination is always bad, it's not always bad. It can be highly justified, like not giving a blind person a drivers license. I like to screw with them on their lack of understanding of that word

What state denies marriage licenses to couples who can't reproduce?

Name one.

Actually some states require certain couples demonstrate an inability to procreate before they are allowed to marry.

 

[Pop23]

Anyone need any more proof that gay rights have won?

WTF does that post mean?

Do you know that blind people can't get drivers licenses?

Is that discrimination?

Is the denial of the license based on ability?

Yes, it is discrimination. Liberals think discrimination is always bad, it's not always bad. It can be highly justified, like not giving a blind person a drivers license. I like to screw with them on their lack of understanding of that word

What state denies marriage licenses to couples who can't reproduce?

Name one.

Can't? Got a point?

The point is, reproduction capability has no place in the gay marriage debate. Now explain that to kazhomophobe.

Gays that marry same sex partners can't reproduce. I thought you knew that?

But as PMH just pointed out, often when one demographic group can't do what another can, denying a license is just common sense.

 

[Pop23]

Ridiculous is the idea that we don't SEPERATE groups or individuals based on ability.

When was the last time a females best time in the 100 meter dash would have qualified for the men's olympic event?

Anyone need any more proof that gay rights have won?

WTF does that post mean?

Do you know that blind people can't get drivers licenses?

Is that discrimination?

Is the denial of the license based on ability?

Yes, it is discrimination. Liberals think discrimination is always bad, it's not always bad. It can be highly justified, like not giving a blind person a drivers license. I like to screw with them on their lack of understanding of that word

What state denies marriage licenses to couples who can't reproduce?

Name one.

Actually some states require certain couples demonstrate an inability to procreate before they are allowed to marry.

Talk about hypocrisy.

 

[RKMBrown]

Do you know that blind people can't get drivers licenses?

Is that discrimination?

Is the denial of the license based on ability?

Yes, it is discrimination. Liberals think discrimination is always bad, it's not always bad. It can be highly justified, like not giving a blind person a drivers license. I like to screw with them on their lack of understanding of that word

What state denies marriage licenses to couples who can't reproduce?

Name one.

Can't? Got a point?

The point is, reproduction capability has no place in the gay marriage debate. Now explain that to kazhomophobe.

Gays that marry same sex partners can't reproduce. I thought you knew that?

But as PMH just pointed out, often when one demographic group can't do what another can, denying a license is just common sense.

Then how do single mothers reproduce? Makes no sense. If what you are saying is true, then single mothers can't get pregnant can they?

 

[Pop23]

Anyone need any more proof that gay rights have won?

WTF does that post mean?

Do you know that blind people can't get drivers licenses?

Is that discrimination?

Is the denial of the license based on ability?

Yes, it is discrimination. Liberals think discrimination is always bad, it's not always bad. It can be highly justified, like not giving a blind person a drivers license. I like to screw with them on their lack of understanding of that word

If the state can find a compelling reason, that the courts will accept, you can discriminate. The courts have looked at your reasons for denying gays the right to marry each other, and found them to be invalid. So sad, for you that is.

So discrimating is not always bad. Good

and the reason is that the blind person has all the ability to drive but one. So arguing that he should be afforded this license is not bizarre, in fact it realistic.

Thanks.

If you can find a valid reason, you can discriminate. Since no one can find one against gay marriage, you lose. That is the reality.

Because the two groups are no where near the same, like male vs. female sprinters?

 

[RKMBrown]

Do you know that blind people can't get drivers licenses?

Is that discrimination?

Is the denial of the license based on ability?

Yes, it is discrimination. Liberals think discrimination is always bad, it's not always bad. It can be highly justified, like not giving a blind person a drivers license. I like to screw with them on their lack of understanding of that word

If the state can find a compelling reason, that the courts will accept, you can discriminate. The courts have looked at your reasons for denying gays the right to marry each other, and found them to be invalid. So sad, for you that is.

So discrimating is not always bad. Good

and the reason is that the blind person has all the ability to drive but one. So arguing that he should be afforded this license is not bizarre, in fact it realistic.

Thanks.

If you can find a valid reason, you can discriminate. Since no one can find one against gay marriage, you lose. That is the reality.

Because the two groups are no where near the same, like male vs. female sprinters?

Cmon pop, how does a single woman produce children when, according to you, women can't produce children unless they are married to a man?

 

[Pop23]

Yes, it is discrimination. Liberals think discrimination is always bad, it's not always bad. It can be highly justified, like not giving a blind person a drivers license. I like to screw with them on their lack of understanding of that word

What state denies marriage licenses to couples who can't reproduce?

Name one.

Can't? Got a point?

The point is, reproduction capability has no place in the gay marriage debate. Now explain that to kazhomophobe.

Gays that marry same sex partners can't reproduce. I thought you knew that?

But as PMH just pointed out, often when one demographic group can't do what another can, denying a license is just common sense.

Then how do single mothers reproduce? Makes no sense. If what you are saying is true, then single mothers can't get pregnant can they?

Watch your back, with all that twisting and turning, you might need a chiropractor by the time your done.

Oh, a single mother would need a male to impregnate her.

 

[Pop23]

Yes, it is discrimination. Liberals think discrimination is always bad, it's not always bad. It can be highly justified, like not giving a blind person a drivers license. I like to screw with them on their lack of understanding of that word

If the state can find a compelling reason, that the courts will accept, you can discriminate. The courts have looked at your reasons for denying gays the right to marry each other, and found them to be invalid. So sad, for you that is.

So discrimating is not always bad. Good

and the reason is that the blind person has all the ability to drive but one. So arguing that he should be afforded this license is not bizarre, in fact it realistic.

Thanks.

If you can find a valid reason, you can discriminate. Since no one can find one against gay marriage, you lose. That is the reality.

Because the two groups are no where near the same, like male vs. female sprinters?

Cmon pop, how does a single woman produce children when, according to you, women can't produce children unless they are married to a man?

Of course I've never said that.

I understand the birds and the bees.

You? Apparently not

So sad.

 

[Seawytch]

If the state can find a compelling reason, that the courts will accept, you can discriminate. The courts have looked at your reasons for denying gays the right to marry each other, and found them to be invalid. So sad, for you that is.

So discrimating is not always bad. Good

and the reason is that the blind person has all the ability to drive but one. So arguing that he should be afforded this license is not bizarre, in fact it realistic.

Thanks.

If you can find a valid reason, you can discriminate. Since no one can find one against gay marriage, you lose. That is the reality.

Because the two groups are no where near the same, like male vs. female sprinters?

Cmon pop, how does a single woman produce children when, according to you, women can't produce children unless they are married to a man?

Of course I've never said that.

I understand the birds and the bees.

You? Apparently not

So sad.

Except your knowledge of the "birds and bees" seems to have peaked at a 1st grade level.

Procreation is not parenting and neither have a thing to do with civil marriage.

 

[RKMBrown]

If the state can find a compelling reason, that the courts will accept, you can discriminate. The courts have looked at your reasons for denying gays the right to marry each other, and found them to be invalid. So sad, for you that is.

So discrimating is not always bad. Good

and the reason is that the blind person has all the ability to drive but one. So arguing that he should be afforded this license is not bizarre, in fact it realistic.

Thanks.

If you can find a valid reason, you can discriminate. Since no one can find one against gay marriage, you lose. That is the reality.

Because the two groups are no where near the same, like male vs. female sprinters?

Cmon pop, how does a single woman produce children when, according to you, women can't produce children unless they are married to a man?

Of course I've never said that.

I understand the birds and the bees.

You? Apparently not

So sad.

Wait... did you just say the birds and the bees apply to gays too? Then why all the crazy arguments that gays can't have kids?

 

[bripat9643]

Anyone need any more proof that gay rights have won?

WTF does that post mean?

Do you know that blind people can't get drivers licenses?

Is that discrimination?

Is the denial of the license based on ability?

Yes, it is discrimination. Liberals think discrimination is always bad, it's not always bad. It can be highly justified, like not giving a blind person a drivers license. I like to screw with them on their lack of understanding of that word

What state denies marriage licenses to couples who can't reproduce?

Name one.

Can't? Got a point?

The point is, reproduction capability has no place in the gay marriage debate. Now explain that to kazhomophobe.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

I laugh every time some member the GAYstapo says that.

 

[Pop23]

So discrimating is not always bad. Good

and the reason is that the blind person has all the ability to drive but one. So arguing that he should be afforded this license is not bizarre, in fact it realistic.

Thanks.

If you can find a valid reason, you can discriminate. Since no one can find one against gay marriage, you lose. That is the reality.

Because the two groups are no where near the same, like male vs. female sprinters?

Cmon pop, how does a single woman produce children when, according to you, women can't produce children unless they are married to a man?

Of course I've never said that.

I understand the birds and the bees.

You? Apparently not

So sad.

Except your knowledge of the "birds and bees" seems to have peaked at a 1st grade level.

Procreation is not parenting and neither have a thing to do with civil marriage.

Can't parent until a child is produced.

And that always involves a male/female.

 

[Pop23]

So discrimating is not always bad. Good

and the reason is that the blind person has all the ability to drive but one. So arguing that he should be afforded this license is not bizarre, in fact it realistic.

Thanks.

If you can find a valid reason, you can discriminate. Since no one can find one against gay marriage, you lose. That is the reality.

Because the two groups are no where near the same, like male vs. female sprinters?

Cmon pop, how does a single woman produce children when, according to you, women can't produce children unless they are married to a man?

Of course I've never said that.

I understand the birds and the bees.

You? Apparently not

So sad.

Wait... did you just say the birds and the bees apply to gays too? Then why all the crazy arguments that gays can't have kids?

If you insist in misrepresenting me then I insist you provide the link where I ever said gays can't procreate.

Please, be so kind.

I've said many many times that gays have often had children, but they can't within a same sex coupling.

Now, provide the requested link ol hoss

 

[Seawytch]

If you can find a valid reason, you can discriminate. Since no one can find one against gay marriage, you lose. That is the reality.

Because the two groups are no where near the same, like male vs. female sprinters?

Cmon pop, how does a single woman produce children when, according to you, women can't produce children unless they are married to a man?

Of course I've never said that.

I understand the birds and the bees.

You? Apparently not

So sad.

Except your knowledge of the "birds and bees" seems to have peaked at a 1st grade level.

Procreation is not parenting and neither have a thing to do with civil marriage.

Can't parent until a child is produced.

And that always involves a male/female.

And you can't make ketchup without tomatoes. Both of which have nothing to do with civil marriage.

 

[kaz]

Your lack of grasp of liner time has nothing to do with intelligence. Well, it does, but not in a good way

"Liner time?"

Regardless, answer, "yes," and you're full of shit. Answer, "no," and that's why gays are entitled to the same benefits.

... and your answer was ... ?

Linear, idiot. You didn't know that was what I meant? Now you're down to spelling? Now that's desperation, you know you're getting your ass kicked

Moron, asking you to clarify your typo was not the extent of my post. You're losing it by harping on that.

So you can cry about typos but I can't respond to your crying about typos. Got it. And noted.

You didn't address my point, how do you make an ex-ante decision on a tax break when you don't know if they are part of the 90% of the heterosexual marriages that will have children or the 10% that won't until you have ex-post data on that? Simple question.

We do know ex-ante if gays will have babies where they are the biological parents. Since it's zero percent ex-post, it's zero percent ex-ante

You're still lying. The marriage tax break is not about having children.

When do you stop lying?

How big a liar am I on a scale from 1 to you? Remember this classic?

I never denied Reagan was handed a recession.

Let's go to the video tape...

Again ... Obama inherited an economy in recession ... Reagan did not

I point out how Reagan was handed an economy which wasn't in recession (which it wasn"t)

I said Reagan didn't inherit a recession because he didn't