Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[RKMBrown]

Is your name Kaz? You said gay marriages can't result in procreation, multiple times. How many links do you want this time, before you run off crying like a baby like you did last time you demanded links?

If I said it multiple times it should be easy to produce the links.

You can't, so you have just been proven a liar dood.

You've been

1: Quote by POP23 "Only opposite sex coupling produce population. Without population there is no need for a government, and we question if same sex coupling should get tax benefits when the contribution is zero?" Citation:
Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

2: Quote by POP23 "100% of all children born come from male/female couplings, 0% of all children born come from same sex couplings." Citation:
Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

3: Quote by POP23 "Where the children come from A same sex coupling has never produced a child. One coupling can One coupling cannot." Citation:
Gays Speak Against Gays Adopting, Politics Not Reported.

4: Quote by POP23 "Can't parent until a child is produced. And that always involves a male/female." Citation:
Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

5: Quote by POP23 "Wouldn't 100% of all gay and lesbian couples with children have them outside of wedlock?" Citation:
Can someone tell me when it was that Gays had different drinking fountains?...

6: Quote by POP23 "All that and you fail to realize that same sex couplings which would include same sex siblings cannot produce children." Citation:
Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA?


All of these citations in "gay marriage" threads, every single one of them. Not one of them in a gay sex thread, not one, not a single one of them. Thus the context of EVERY SINGLE STATEMENT YOU MADE was to point out that there is no point to gay marriages since gay couples can't create children.

Definition of COUPLING
1: the act of bringing or coming together : pairing
websters

In the context of gay marriage. The coming together of two people of the same sex in marriage. Which may also include having sex, having children, adopting children, raising families... etc.

And nowhere in that entire tirade can you find where I said gays can't procreate.

I'll be right back with your original quote.

What I said to you pop was... 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.

That's not what you sa

We know that zero percent of infertile heterosexual marriages will bear children from both partners- and we don't care.

We do know that gay marriages can- and do have children the same way that millions of heterosexual marriages do.

But you want to exclude homosexual marriages entirely because they are homosexual- and for no other reason.

So you can get your bennies- and deny those bennies to them.

So that a gay couple raising 8 kids has to pay bennies to 2 80 year olds who get married on a whim in Las Vegas.

Ummmm, many infertile couples use in vitro to combine and produce a child from the couple.

So what?

What state marriage law requires fertility to qualify for a marriage license?

Name one.

Several mumicipalities require the lack of the ability

Shall I repeat the question and give you the opportunity to show off your retardation even more?

Shall I repeat the answer, which implies........

Procreation is indeed part of the equation

Is that too deep for your simple mind.

But it was a nice way to try to save RK's ass

Part of what equation ya moron? The issue is about gay marriage not procreation ya dumb ass. If you want to start a thread about gay sex being as productive as you screwing a cherry pie effing go for it. Your admission that procreation and sex are non issues with regard to the gay marriage debate is SUMMARILY NOTED. I would suggest you drop it vs. continuing to get your butt beat.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Until they have the right to marry the person they love

If Mike is gay and loves Steve, he cannot marry him. OK, let's try the equal protection test. If Mike is not gay, can he marry Steve? No. Your argument is fail

Ouch, I should have warned you about that loose plank. Sorry you stepped on it and it whacked you in the face.

And the whole concept laws would change based on you want something different is just retarded

Tell us, what other state-sponsored contract (used to) require one to be male and the other female? Oh right, there isn't one. Your argument is as dead as your dogma and your tiny mind. Luckily the grownups have taken over, meaning you, the child, has now lost.

Wow, you're a contortionist.

Women have a clear advantage in court for custody when parents split. Affermative action is allowed for women, not men. Women are allowed in locker rooms of male athletes because of discrimination accusations, not vice versa.

There are lots of laws that change based on sex. I really need to fix that loose plank, now it bashed you in the face when you stepped on it. Sorry, guy. Get how it works now? Time to grow up

Sweetcheeks, I am the grownup here. I, unlike you, can deal with reality, therefore gay people and equality.

Dude, you deal with reality?



And you couldn't be the grownup in a group of kindergarteners. You crack me up sometimes. Like now. I don't know whether it's funnier when you think you are sane or when you think you give a shit about anyone but yourself.

Pure projection...

 

[NYcarbineer]

Is your name Kaz? You said gay marriages can't result in procreation, multiple times. How many links do you want this time, before you run off crying like a baby like you did last time you demanded links?

If I said it multiple times it should be easy to produce the links.

You can't, so you have just been proven a liar dood.

You've been

1: Quote by POP23 "Only opposite sex coupling produce population. Without population there is no need for a government, and we question if same sex coupling should get tax benefits when the contribution is zero?" Citation:
Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

2: Quote by POP23 "100% of all children born come from male/female couplings, 0% of all children born come from same sex couplings." Citation:
Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

3: Quote by POP23 "Where the children come from A same sex coupling has never produced a child. One coupling can One coupling cannot." Citation:
Gays Speak Against Gays Adopting, Politics Not Reported.

4: Quote by POP23 "Can't parent until a child is produced. And that always involves a male/female." Citation:
Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

5: Quote by POP23 "Wouldn't 100% of all gay and lesbian couples with children have them outside of wedlock?" Citation:
Can someone tell me when it was that Gays had different drinking fountains?...

6: Quote by POP23 "All that and you fail to realize that same sex couplings which would include same sex siblings cannot produce children." Citation:
Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA?


All of these citations in "gay marriage" threads, every single one of them. Not one of them in a gay sex thread, not one, not a single one of them. Thus the context of EVERY SINGLE STATEMENT YOU MADE was to point out that there is no point to gay marriages since gay couples can't create children.

Definition of COUPLING
1: the act of bringing or coming together : pairing
websters

In the context of gay marriage. The coming together of two people of the same sex in marriage. Which may also include having sex, having children, adopting children, raising families... etc.

And nowhere in that entire tirade can you find where I said gays can't procreate.

I'll be right back with your original quote.

What I said to you pop was... 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.

That's not what you sa

We know that zero percent of infertile heterosexual marriages will bear children from both partners- and we don't care.

We do know that gay marriages can- and do have children the same way that millions of heterosexual marriages do.

But you want to exclude homosexual marriages entirely because they are homosexual- and for no other reason.

So you can get your bennies- and deny those bennies to them.

So that a gay couple raising 8 kids has to pay bennies to 2 80 year olds who get married on a whim in Las Vegas.

Ummmm, many infertile couples use in vitro to combine and produce a child from the couple.

So what?

What state marriage law requires fertility to qualify for a marriage license?

Name one.

Several mumicipalities require the lack of the ability

Shall I repeat the question and give you the opportunity to show off your retardation even more?

Shall I repeat the answer, which implies........

Procreation is indeed part of the equation

Is that too deep for your simple mind.

But it was a nice way to try to save RK's ass

No, it's not. No state denies marriage licenses to the sterile.

 

[Pop23]

If I said it multiple times it should be easy to produce the links.

You can't, so you have just been proven a liar dood.

You've been

1: Quote by POP23 "Only opposite sex coupling produce population. Without population there is no need for a government, and we question if same sex coupling should get tax benefits when the contribution is zero?" Citation:
Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

2: Quote by POP23 "100% of all children born come from male/female couplings, 0% of all children born come from same sex couplings." Citation:
Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

3: Quote by POP23 "Where the children come from A same sex coupling has never produced a child. One coupling can One coupling cannot." Citation:
Gays Speak Against Gays Adopting, Politics Not Reported.

4: Quote by POP23 "Can't parent until a child is produced. And that always involves a male/female." Citation:
Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

5: Quote by POP23 "Wouldn't 100% of all gay and lesbian couples with children have them outside of wedlock?" Citation:
Can someone tell me when it was that Gays had different drinking fountains?...

6: Quote by POP23 "All that and you fail to realize that same sex couplings which would include same sex siblings cannot produce children." Citation:
Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA?


All of these citations in "gay marriage" threads, every single one of them. Not one of them in a gay sex thread, not one, not a single one of them. Thus the context of EVERY SINGLE STATEMENT YOU MADE was to point out that there is no point to gay marriages since gay couples can't create children.

Definition of COUPLING
1: the act of bringing or coming together : pairing
websters

In the context of gay marriage. The coming together of two people of the same sex in marriage. Which may also include having sex, having children, adopting children, raising families... etc.

And nowhere in that entire tirade can you find where I said gays can't procreate.

I'll be right back with your original quote.

What I said to you pop was... 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.

That's not what you sa

Ummmm, many infertile couples use in vitro to combine and produce a child from the couple.

So what?

What state marriage law requires fertility to qualify for a marriage license?

Name one.

Several mumicipalities require the lack of the ability

Shall I repeat the question and give you the opportunity to show off your retardation even more?

Shall I repeat the answer, which implies........

Procreation is indeed part of the equation

Is that too deep for your simple mind.

But it was a nice way to try to save RK's ass

Part of what equation ya moron? The issue is about gay marriage not procreation ya dumb ass. If you want to start a thread about gay sex being as productive as you screwing a cherry pie effing go for it. Your admission that procreation and sex are non issues with regard to the gay marriage debate is SUMMARILY NOTED. I would suggest you drop it vs. continuing to get your butt beat.

Still can't come up with the quote

You are dismissed

 

[WorldWatcher]

Several mumicipalities require the lack of the ability

"mumicipalities" don't set state civil marriage laws.

It's state legislatures that set those laws in place.

>>>>

 

[Pop23]

If I said it multiple times it should be easy to produce the links.

You can't, so you have just been proven a liar dood.

You've been

1: Quote by POP23 "Only opposite sex coupling produce population. Without population there is no need for a government, and we question if same sex coupling should get tax benefits when the contribution is zero?" Citation:
Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

2: Quote by POP23 "100% of all children born come from male/female couplings, 0% of all children born come from same sex couplings." Citation:
Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

3: Quote by POP23 "Where the children come from A same sex coupling has never produced a child. One coupling can One coupling cannot." Citation:
Gays Speak Against Gays Adopting, Politics Not Reported.

4: Quote by POP23 "Can't parent until a child is produced. And that always involves a male/female." Citation:
Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

5: Quote by POP23 "Wouldn't 100% of all gay and lesbian couples with children have them outside of wedlock?" Citation:
Can someone tell me when it was that Gays had different drinking fountains?...

6: Quote by POP23 "All that and you fail to realize that same sex couplings which would include same sex siblings cannot produce children." Citation:
Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA?


All of these citations in "gay marriage" threads, every single one of them. Not one of them in a gay sex thread, not one, not a single one of them. Thus the context of EVERY SINGLE STATEMENT YOU MADE was to point out that there is no point to gay marriages since gay couples can't create children.

Definition of COUPLING
1: the act of bringing or coming together : pairing
websters

In the context of gay marriage. The coming together of two people of the same sex in marriage. Which may also include having sex, having children, adopting children, raising families... etc.

And nowhere in that entire tirade can you find where I said gays can't procreate.

I'll be right back with your original quote.

What I said to you pop was... 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.

That's not what you sa

Ummmm, many infertile couples use in vitro to combine and produce a child from the couple.

So what?

What state marriage law requires fertility to qualify for a marriage license?

Name one.

Several mumicipalities require the lack of the ability

Shall I repeat the question and give you the opportunity to show off your retardation even more?

Shall I repeat the answer, which implies........

Procreation is indeed part of the equation

Is that too deep for your simple mind.

But it was a nice way to try to save RK's ass

No, it's not. No state denies marriage licenses to the sterile.

For 1st cousins they do. Just ask SeaWytch

 

[Seawytch]

1: Quote by POP23 "Only opposite sex coupling produce population. Without population there is no need for a government, and we question if same sex coupling should get tax benefits when the contribution is zero?" Citation:
Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

2: Quote by POP23 "100% of all children born come from male/female couplings, 0% of all children born come from same sex couplings." Citation:
Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

3: Quote by POP23 "Where the children come from A same sex coupling has never produced a child. One coupling can One coupling cannot." Citation:
Gays Speak Against Gays Adopting, Politics Not Reported.

4: Quote by POP23 "Can't parent until a child is produced. And that always involves a male/female." Citation:
Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

5: Quote by POP23 "Wouldn't 100% of all gay and lesbian couples with children have them outside of wedlock?" Citation:
Can someone tell me when it was that Gays had different drinking fountains?...

6: Quote by POP23 "All that and you fail to realize that same sex couplings which would include same sex siblings cannot produce children." Citation:
Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA?


All of these citations in "gay marriage" threads, every single one of them. Not one of them in a gay sex thread, not one, not a single one of them. Thus the context of EVERY SINGLE STATEMENT YOU MADE was to point out that there is no point to gay marriages since gay couples can't create children.

Definition of COUPLING
1: the act of bringing or coming together : pairing
websters

In the context of gay marriage. The coming together of two people of the same sex in marriage. Which may also include having sex, having children, adopting children, raising families... etc.

And nowhere in that entire tirade can you find where I said gays can't procreate.

I'll be right back with your original quote.

What I said to you pop was... 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.

That's not what you sa

So what?

What state marriage law requires fertility to qualify for a marriage license?

Name one.

Several mumicipalities require the lack of the ability

Shall I repeat the question and give you the opportunity to show off your retardation even more?

Shall I repeat the answer, which implies........

Procreation is indeed part of the equation

Is that too deep for your simple mind.

But it was a nice way to try to save RK's ass

No, it's not. No state denies marriage licenses to the sterile.

For 1st cousins they do. Just ask SeaWytch

No idiot...they only issue the license if they are unable to procreate.

This point alone renders your procreation argument...stupid.

 

[WorldWatcher]

No, it's not. No state denies marriage licenses to the sterile.

For 1st cousins they do. Just ask SeaWytch

No State that allows first cousin marriage denies a marriage license based on being sterile.

To state correctly what the law says (in those states) - it is that marriage licenses are denied if the couple is fertile.

Exactly the opposite of your statement.


>>>

 

[Pop23]

No, it's not. No state denies marriage licenses to the sterile.

For 1st cousins they do. Just ask SeaWytch

No State that allows first cousin marriage denies a marriage license based on being sterile.

To state correctly what the law says (in those states) - it is that marriage licenses are denied if the couple is fertile.

Exactly the opposite of your statement.


>>>

If not fertile, then the individual must be????

 

[Pop23]

And nowhere in that entire tirade can you find where I said gays can't procreate.

I'll be right back with your original quote.

What I said to you pop was... 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.

That's not what you sa

Several mumicipalities require the lack of the ability

Shall I repeat the question and give you the opportunity to show off your retardation even more?

Shall I repeat the answer, which implies........

Procreation is indeed part of the equation

Is that too deep for your simple mind.

But it was a nice way to try to save RK's ass

No, it's not. No state denies marriage licenses to the sterile.

For 1st cousins they do. Just ask SeaWytch

No idiot...they only issue the license if they are unable to procreate.

This point alone renders your procreation argument...stupid.

So procreation matters in those areas?

Oh my

 

[Pop23]

Several mumicipalities require the lack of the ability

"mumicipalities" don't set state civil marriage laws.

It's state legislatures that set those laws in place.

>>>>

Did I say state?

 

[WorldWatcher]

No, it's not. No state denies marriage licenses to the sterile.

For 1st cousins they do. Just ask SeaWytch

No State that allows first cousin marriage denies a marriage license based on being sterile.

To state correctly what the law says (in those states) - it is that marriage licenses are denied if the couple is fertile.

Exactly the opposite of your statement.


>>>

If not fertile, then the individual must be????

There are no fertility requirements on an individual.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Several mumicipalities require the lack of the ability

"mumicipalities" don't set state civil marriage laws.

It's state legislatures that set those laws in place.

>>>>

Did I say state?

No you said "mumicipalities" (i.e. municipalities).

The laws that were shown to you before were State laws, not municipal (i.e. city/town) laws.


>>>>

 

[Pop23]

No, it's not. No state denies marriage licenses to the sterile.

For 1st cousins they do. Just ask SeaWytch

No State that allows first cousin marriage denies a marriage license based on being sterile.

To state correctly what the law says (in those states) - it is that marriage licenses are denied if the couple is fertile.

Exactly the opposite of your statement.


>>>

If not fertile, then the individual must be????

There are no fertility requirements on an individual.


>>>>

But the lack thereof?

Sounds like discrimination to me when the same qualification, or should I say, proof of same would only be required of opposite sex couples.

Can't have it both ways, right?

 

[Pop23]

Several mumicipalities require the lack of the ability

"mumicipalities" don't set state civil marriage laws.

It's state legislatures that set those laws in place.

>>>>

Did I say state?

No you said "mumicipalities" (i.e. municipalities).

The laws that were shown to you before were State laws, not municipal (i.e. city/town) laws.


>>>>

So I mumbled? I'm drunk maybe?

 

[Pop23]

Several mumicipalities require the lack of the ability

"mumicipalities" don't set state civil marriage laws.

It's state legislatures that set those laws in place.

>>>>

Did I say state?

No you said "mumicipalities" (i.e. municipalities).

The laws that were shown to you before were State laws, not municipal (i.e. city/town) laws.


>>>>

I was referring to a statement made earlier by SeaWytch.

Non the less, seems procreation, for some stupid reason matters there.

 

[kaz]

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?

So...your in-home culture is Korean...and you live in Korea.

You're going to have to explain that one to me. Do I need to do jello shots like you first to understand it?

I was responding to the race whoring ***** Seawytch's claim perfect parents are white. Obviously that's not the case or since my ass is white, my kids would be white if I believed that

Nope..I said that using your logic, "ideal" parents would be rich and white. It's as valid a claim as your "straight parents are ideal".

Nothing I said was race, slut. So how is "white" my logic?

 

[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?

Can we stick to the points, gay boy? I know you want to talk about feelings. Maybe you can just have a white whine spritzer and snap it out and come back when you can focus on the discussion points.

I've answered this question repeatedly. How do we know ex-ante which of the 90% of heterosexual marriages will result in kids? When you can answer that, get back to me.

We do know that 100% of gay marriages won't.

And still the reality is that some two million children are living in same sex homes and 4% of all adoptions are by gay couples.

Anti gay argument fail #143.

No, 2 million have at least one gay parent according to liberal studies. Most of them are faking it. You need to repent, you are doomed to hell. it's probably too late, but at least give salvation a shot. Slut

 

[Pop23]

No, it's not. No state denies marriage licenses to the sterile.

For 1st cousins they do. Just ask SeaWytch

No State that allows first cousin marriage denies a marriage license based on being sterile.

To state correctly what the law says (in those states) - it is that marriage licenses are denied if the couple is fertile.

Exactly the opposite of your statement.


>>>

If not fertile, then the individual must be????

There are no fertility requirements on an individual.


>>>>

You might think your arguing with me, but this is what SeaWytch posted

No idiot...they only issue the license if they are unable to procreate.

This point alone renders your procreation argument...stupid.

To "Marry" involves couples. So you may be somewhat correct, but at least one (an individual?) must be:

A: unable to procreate
B: not fertile
C: sterile.

In any case, the argument is that procreation does not matter in marriage.

Which of the above answers indicate your argument is correct?

 

[Pop23]

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?

Can we stick to the points, gay boy? I know you want to talk about feelings. Maybe you can just have a white whine spritzer and snap it out and come back when you can focus on the discussion points.

I've answered this question repeatedly. How do we know ex-ante which of the 90% of heterosexual marriages will result in kids? When you can answer that, get back to me.

We do know that 100% of gay marriages won't.

And still the reality is that some two million children are living in same sex homes and 4% of all adoptions are by gay couples.

Anti gay argument fail #143.

No, 2 million have at least one gay parent according to liberal studies. Most of them are faking it. You need to repent, you are doomed to hell. it's probably too late, but at least give salvation a shot. Slut

That's actually a decent point?