Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[Lilah]

How could the Government sanction Sodomy or sexual perversion. Wasn't Sodomy a crime a few years ago.
This whole gay marriage campaign is absurd.Sexual abnormality should not be legalized by the government.
In many African and third world nations this homosexuality is still a major crime with serious jail time as a penalty.!

If given the option, I would choose Fredrick because he's loving, kind, generous, intelligent, and would not in a million years molest a baby girl. Another thing, I don't believe he would participate in pre-marital sex with a ho,. and then demand his children not so much as hug before marriage. I don't believe he would teach his daughters how to kiss while all the while protecting a molester of them.
While I don't ponder on Fredrick's sex life, he's probably not doing anything that those self-righteous, hypocritical old white men are doing to or trying to do their wives or other women. You know that thing you call sodomy and they call their rights.

 

[Pop23]

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.

Huh?

Tomato Free Ketchup Recipe - Food.com

Lol

But seriously folks

Every way that a same sex couple can procreate are the same as opposite sex couples with one HUGE exception.

Only male/female couples can create a child completely within that couple with shared DNA.

So, since blind people are just like everyone else, with only one HUGE difference, we should give them a license?

I disagree

 

[RKMBrown]

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

So you admit your argument was baseless from the start? There is no requirement for "coupling" in a marriage. There is no requirement for marriages producing kids. The only requirement going on around here is that gays can't get married.. and that will soon end.

 

[kaz]

ROFL ^ dumb ass thinks you have to be married to have kids.

Except that appears nowhere in the noted post.

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?

Kaz is just arguing for discrimination against gays.

Wrong, I'm not arguing for just that

Everything else is just window dressing.

Kaz enjoys his marriage bennies- and is happy to have gay couples raising kids pay for his marriage bennies.

Actually, you support progressive taxes, Sparky

Kaz is fine taking money away from homes with kids(if the parents are gay) to give to newly wed 80 year olds - as long as the 80 year olds are not gay.


Like I said- just all window dressing- Kaz has his- and he wants to discriminate against gays- and their children.

Strawman, I said nothing about eliminating child deductions for gays, just the marriage breaks

 

[RKMBrown]

It matters to Biology, in which the vast majority of sex has nothing to do with making babies, and was never meant to.

Still only one group can advance the species. Making the two groups vastly different.

One group IS necessary for our species to survive

The other

Plays zero role

That's as basic as biology gets

As for pleasure and bonding.

One group can use sex for that I suppose

The other group has that PLUS the continuation of the species. Again vastly different

Accept it, the above are all facts, and are all absolutes.

ROFL ^ dumb ass thinks you have to be married to have kids.

That's what the thread is about, Sparky. We have a marriage tax break because the concept of marriage is they will have children and hopefully the wife will stay home and raise them. There are other discussions your point would be valid in, but Pop is right on this thread

Incorrect, we have child tax breaks for those. And you don't have to be married to have child tax breaks. You are just making stuff up.

Right, people move in together and share expenses, so we want them to have another tax break for that. The concept of marriage is for piling tax breaks on people already cutting their expenses. That's what they want.

It's funny how leftists are so much like Christians. It's about faith, and you love nothing more than the chance to show that faith has led you believe fully something otherwise only an idiot would believe.

I guess you can't have two Gods, and yours is government. That's why you hate Christians, they are competition for the sheep you want to join your faith

I don't hate christians. I'm a christian. What I hate is your bigotry.

 

[kaz]

ROFL ^ dumb ass thinks you have to be married to have kids.

Except that appears nowhere in the noted post.

Yes or no, pop, gays can have kids. You can't have it both ways.

Until he proves the impossible, which is to prove that marriage licenses are only issued to fertile couples

No one said that, moron

Oh really? That proves your argument has no merit. You've just proven your argument has no merit.

Pointing out no one said what you said they said proves my argument has no merit.

Hmm.

How long did you work on that argument?

 

[kaz]

Still only one group can advance the species. Making the two groups vastly different.

One group IS necessary for our species to survive

The other

Plays zero role

That's as basic as biology gets

As for pleasure and bonding.

One group can use sex for that I suppose

The other group has that PLUS the continuation of the species. Again vastly different

Accept it, the above are all facts, and are all absolutes.

ROFL ^ dumb ass thinks you have to be married to have kids.

Except that appears nowhere in the noted post.

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"

Single moms get all the tax breaks that are child related.

Exactly, everyone does. Including gays

 

[kaz]

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.

How many rocks are on the moon?

 

[kaz]

Why does that matter? You Catholic?

It matters to Biology, in which the vast majority of sex has nothing to do with making babies, and was never meant to.

Your argument is a dead end. They are getting paid for the babies, what else they do is irrelevant. They aren't getting marriage tax for making waffles either. The fact is as Seawytch pointed out 90% of straight marriages do end up in perpetuating the species.

Gay sex never leads to babies. That is the difference.

That and your hypocrisy that you want progressive taxes, then you want to not pay them.

So what about Republicans who supported the Iraq war, should they not have to pay for it?

Actually, yours is the dead argument as you've failed miserably to prove married couples get "paid for the babies."

Liar, you are a human being. You know the reason there are tax breaks with marriage are families. Even you are not stupid enough to not know that. Without babies, couples already share costs and save money. No one would give marriage tax breaks other than the expectation of a family.

And families without children don't get those tax breaks. Including gay couples without children.

So what are you complaining about?

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

 

[Syriusly]

Except that appears nowhere in the noted post.

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?

Kaz is just arguing for discrimination against gays.

Wrong, I'm not arguing for just that

Everything else is just window dressing.

Kaz enjoys his marriage bennies- and is happy to have gay couples raising kids pay for his marriage bennies.

Actually, you support progressive taxes, Sparky

Kaz is fine taking money away from homes with kids(if the parents are gay) to give to newly wed 80 year olds - as long as the 80 year olds are not gay.


Like I said- just all window dressing- Kaz has his- and he wants to discriminate against gays- and their children.

Strawman, I said nothing about eliminating child deductions for gays, just the marriage breaks

Yes- you are arguing exactly that- you are specifically arguing that gay couples should be discriminated against- even gay couples raising children.

Your argument is that gay couples should have to pay taxes that you do not have to pay- i.e. that gay couples raising children should pay you and your wife to encourage you to be married.

Your argument comes down to taking away money from families with children- if the parents are gay- and giving it to couples with no children- as long as they are not gay.

I.e.- discrimination based entirely upon sexual orientation.

 

[kaz]

Except that appears nowhere in the noted post.

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.

Why? My OP post was clear on that

 

[Syriusly]

How could the Government sanction Sodomy or sexual perversion. Wasn't Sodomy a crime a few years ago.
This whole gay marriage campaign is absurd.Sexual abnormality should not be legalized by the government.
In many African and third world nations this homosexuality is still a major crime with serious jail time as a penalty.!

And?

Tell us what else you admire about such countries.

And if you find such policies more to your liking....well Russia would welcome you.

 

[kaz]

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

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.

Yes, the state needs to convince the courts not to legislate, that's in the Constitution, I remember that part

 

[Syriusly]

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

So it's about patting fags on the back and saying you're gay and it's OK, is it? They need collective validation as I always said, at least someone finally admitted it

If that's how you need to frame "equal protection," how sad for you.

Equal protection for me is being treated equally. Gays have that now

LOL- in a thread where you specifically argue that gay couples should not be treated equally with straight couples.

In a thread where you argue that gay couples should be forced to pay you to be married- while you do not have to pay them for their marriage.

How exactly is that being 'treated equally'?

 

[kaz]

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.

Paint has proven that a blind man can do lots of things. Like post on message boards

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Yes, the state needs to convince the courts not to legislate, that's in the Constitution, I remember that part

The courts don't legislate- that is in the Constitution.

The courts interpret the constitutionality of laws- like they have for marriage laws 3 times in the past.

 

[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.

Why? My OP post was clear on that

Oh? Where did you answer my question in your post about your hatred for single parents?

 

[kaz]

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.

Right, perpetuation of the species isn't a legitimate concern for a country. That makes sense, I feel you

 

[Pop23]

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.

Why? My OP post was clear on that

Oh? Where did you answer my question in your post about your hatred for single parents?

Have you supplied the link yet where you claim I said gays can't have children?

Until then, you deserve nothing no matter how much you kick and scream.

 

[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.

Right, perpetuation of the species isn't a legitimate concern for a country. That makes sense, I feel you

Yawn... how will gay marriages cause concern over the perpetuation of the species? You morons just go round and round..