Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[kaz]

All of the ways in which 'other taxpayers' are being forced to 'subsidize' gay marriage are, by definition, the same ways in which gays are obliged to subsidize hetero marriages.

Right. Because it aids in the effort required to raise children. Hetero couples can procreate, homo couples can't.

When you can show me the heterosexual couple that was denied a marriage license for their inability or unwillingness to procreate, you might have a point. You can't and so you don't.

100% of gay couples can't procreate. There is no point to funding it. You should have gay sex on your own dime

Are you sure about that? My children were born of a 100% gay union.

And no, as long as you straight folks are giving yourselves cash and prizes for being married, we get 'em too. Hope it annoys the **** out of you.

Yes, I'm sure. If you and your partner were the biological parents, you'd be written up in medical journals. You have a link for that?

 

[Seawytch]

All of the ways in which 'other taxpayers' are being forced to 'subsidize' gay marriage are, by definition, the same ways in which gays are obliged to subsidize hetero marriages.

Right. Because it aids in the effort required to raise children. Hetero couples can procreate, homo couples can't.

When you can show me the heterosexual couple that was denied a marriage license for their inability or unwillingness to procreate, you might have a point. You can't and so you don't.

100% of gay couples can't procreate. There is no point to funding it. You should have gay sex on your own dime

Are you sure about that? My children were born of a 100% gay union.

And no, as long as you straight folks are giving yourselves cash and prizes for being married, we get 'em too. Hope it annoys the **** out of you.

Yes, I'm sure. If you and your partner were the biological parents, you'd be written up in medical journals. You have a link for that?

That's not what I said. I said that our children came from a 100% gay union...not that my wife and I are the biological parents. My wife and I are their parents, however, legally and where it matters, in the heart.

My wife and I have children, Kaz just like you do. We are the ones responsible for their upbringing and care. I'll keep "subsidizing" you and you keep "subsidizing" me. You can try to get those subsidies taken away for both of us. Have fun storming the castle!

 

[kaz]

Right. Because it aids in the effort required to raise children. Hetero couples can procreate, homo couples can't.

When you can show me the heterosexual couple that was denied a marriage license for their inability or unwillingness to procreate, you might have a point. You can't and so you don't.

100% of gay couples can't procreate. There is no point to funding it. You should have gay sex on your own dime

Are you sure about that? My children were born of a 100% gay union.

And no, as long as you straight folks are giving yourselves cash and prizes for being married, we get 'em too. Hope it annoys the **** out of you.

Yes, I'm sure. If you and your partner were the biological parents, you'd be written up in medical journals. You have a link for that?

That's not what I said. I said that our children came from a 100% gay union...not that my wife and I are the biological parents. My wife and I are their parents, however, legally and where it matters, in the heart.

My wife and I have children, Kaz just like you do. We are the ones responsible for their upbringing and care. I'll keep "subsidizing" you and you keep "subsidizing" me. You can try to get those subsidies taken away for both of us. Have fun storming the castle!

Your gay marriage had nothing to do with it, anyone can adopt or be inseminated

 

[Pop23]

Right. Because it aids in the effort required to raise children. Hetero couples can procreate, homo couples can't.

When you can show me the heterosexual couple that was denied a marriage license for their inability or unwillingness to procreate, you might have a point. You can't and so you don't.

100% of gay couples can't procreate. There is no point to funding it. You should have gay sex on your own dime

Are you sure about that? My children were born of a 100% gay union.

And no, as long as you straight folks are giving yourselves cash and prizes for being married, we get 'em too. Hope it annoys the **** out of you.

Yes, I'm sure. If you and your partner were the biological parents, you'd be written up in medical journals. You have a link for that?

That's not what I said. I said that our children came from a 100% gay union...not that my wife and I are the biological parents. My wife and I are their parents, however, legally and where it matters, in the heart.

My wife and I have children, Kaz just like you do. We are the ones responsible for their upbringing and care. I'll keep "subsidizing" you and you keep "subsidizing" me. You can try to get those subsidies taken away for both of us. Have fun storming the castle!

All such siblings are created by opposite gender couplings. The sexuality is irrelevant.

So you must procreate using an opposite sex partner, whether that partner is straight or gay.

Kaz could not procreate using a same gender partner, no matter if they were straight or gay.

 

[kaz]

Kaz: "100% of gay couples can't procreate. There is no point to funding it. You should have gay sex on your own dime"

So you only have sex with the aim of procreation?
And gay couples don't have any children?

Kaz, your patriotic girly avatar says it all... a gift from those Froggy Liberals...

"Give me your tired, your poor/Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"

That's pretty scary stuff, non?

You know if you quote or mention me I'm a lot more likely to see your posts. I get a lot of responses and frequently don't see just replies to threads. Obviously I saw this well after and only because I was looking for something else. I don't have you on ignore like syriously, who is syriously deranged and an idiot.

As for free, are you serious? Without government validation and perks you are not free? Dude, freedom doesn't mean free shit.

And the statue of liberty is "girly?" Dude, you need to get out and date more. That's some serious horny...

 

[Seawytch]

When you can show me the heterosexual couple that was denied a marriage license for their inability or unwillingness to procreate, you might have a point. You can't and so you don't.

100% of gay couples can't procreate. There is no point to funding it. You should have gay sex on your own dime

Are you sure about that? My children were born of a 100% gay union.

And no, as long as you straight folks are giving yourselves cash and prizes for being married, we get 'em too. Hope it annoys the **** out of you.

Yes, I'm sure. If you and your partner were the biological parents, you'd be written up in medical journals. You have a link for that?

That's not what I said. I said that our children came from a 100% gay union...not that my wife and I are the biological parents. My wife and I are their parents, however, legally and where it matters, in the heart.

My wife and I have children, Kaz just like you do. We are the ones responsible for their upbringing and care. I'll keep "subsidizing" you and you keep "subsidizing" me. You can try to get those subsidies taken away for both of us. Have fun storming the castle!

Your gay marriage had nothing to do with it, anyone can adopt or be inseminated

So? We are still legally the parents of our children and we are also legally married. Neither has anything to do with the other. Without the wife, I'd still get the tax breaks for the children and without the children, I'd still get the tax breaks for the wife. (and we'd both still legally be their parents)

Hope it annoys you.

 

[Seawytch]

When you can show me the heterosexual couple that was denied a marriage license for their inability or unwillingness to procreate, you might have a point. You can't and so you don't.

100% of gay couples can't procreate. There is no point to funding it. You should have gay sex on your own dime

Are you sure about that? My children were born of a 100% gay union.

And no, as long as you straight folks are giving yourselves cash and prizes for being married, we get 'em too. Hope it annoys the **** out of you.

Yes, I'm sure. If you and your partner were the biological parents, you'd be written up in medical journals. You have a link for that?

That's not what I said. I said that our children came from a 100% gay union...not that my wife and I are the biological parents. My wife and I are their parents, however, legally and where it matters, in the heart.

My wife and I have children, Kaz just like you do. We are the ones responsible for their upbringing and care. I'll keep "subsidizing" you and you keep "subsidizing" me. You can try to get those subsidies taken away for both of us. Have fun storming the castle!

All such siblings are created by opposite gender couplings. The sexuality is irrelevant.

So you must procreate using an opposite sex partner, whether that partner is straight or gay.

Kaz could not procreate using a same gender partner, no matter if they were straight or gay.

So? Procreation isn't parenting...unless you want to say adoptive parents aren't "real" parents. Do you want to say that? Do you want to say that the millions of couples that you ART (Assisted Reproductive Technology) aren't "real" parents?

Do you want to say that my wife and I aren't the "real" parents of our children?

 

[Pop23]

100% of gay couples can't procreate. There is no point to funding it. You should have gay sex on your own dime

Are you sure about that? My children were born of a 100% gay union.

And no, as long as you straight folks are giving yourselves cash and prizes for being married, we get 'em too. Hope it annoys the **** out of you.

Yes, I'm sure. If you and your partner were the biological parents, you'd be written up in medical journals. You have a link for that?

That's not what I said. I said that our children came from a 100% gay union...not that my wife and I are the biological parents. My wife and I are their parents, however, legally and where it matters, in the heart.

My wife and I have children, Kaz just like you do. We are the ones responsible for their upbringing and care. I'll keep "subsidizing" you and you keep "subsidizing" me. You can try to get those subsidies taken away for both of us. Have fun storming the castle!

All such siblings are created by opposite gender couplings. The sexuality is irrelevant.

So you must procreate using an opposite sex partner, whether that partner is straight or gay.

Kaz could not procreate using a same gender partner, no matter if they were straight or gay.

So? Procreation isn't parenting...unless you want to say adoptive parents aren't "real" parents. Do you want to say that? Do you want to say that the millions of couples that you ART (Assisted Reproductive Technology) aren't "real" parents?

Do you want to say that my wife and I aren't the "real" parents of our children?

Unless we are redefining the word "real" then no, your children would have one "real" parent, and one that played no part in their creation.

Is this an important part of your argument?

 

[Pop23]

100% of gay couples can't procreate. There is no point to funding it. You should have gay sex on your own dime

Are you sure about that? My children were born of a 100% gay union.

And no, as long as you straight folks are giving yourselves cash and prizes for being married, we get 'em too. Hope it annoys the **** out of you.

Yes, I'm sure. If you and your partner were the biological parents, you'd be written up in medical journals. You have a link for that?

That's not what I said. I said that our children came from a 100% gay union...not that my wife and I are the biological parents. My wife and I are their parents, however, legally and where it matters, in the heart.

My wife and I have children, Kaz just like you do. We are the ones responsible for their upbringing and care. I'll keep "subsidizing" you and you keep "subsidizing" me. You can try to get those subsidies taken away for both of us. Have fun storming the castle!

All such siblings are created by opposite gender couplings. The sexuality is irrelevant.

So you must procreate using an opposite sex partner, whether that partner is straight or gay.

Kaz could not procreate using a same gender partner, no matter if they were straight or gay.

So? Procreation isn't parenting...unless you want to say adoptive parents aren't "real" parents. Do you want to say that? Do you want to say that the millions of couples that you ART (Assisted Reproductive Technology) aren't "real" parents?

Do you want to say that my wife and I aren't the "real" parents of our children?

As for ART? It is many time used using the sperm from the male married partner and the egg from the female married partner.

This is NEVER possible in same gender marriage, is it?

 

[Faun]

100% of gay couples can't procreate. There is no point to funding it. You should have gay sex on your own dime

Are you sure about that? My children were born of a 100% gay union.

And no, as long as you straight folks are giving yourselves cash and prizes for being married, we get 'em too. Hope it annoys the **** out of you.

Yes, I'm sure. If you and your partner were the biological parents, you'd be written up in medical journals. You have a link for that?

That's not what I said. I said that our children came from a 100% gay union...not that my wife and I are the biological parents. My wife and I are their parents, however, legally and where it matters, in the heart.

My wife and I have children, Kaz just like you do. We are the ones responsible for their upbringing and care. I'll keep "subsidizing" you and you keep "subsidizing" me. You can try to get those subsidies taken away for both of us. Have fun storming the castle!

Your gay marriage had nothing to do with it, anyone can adopt or be inseminated

So? We are still legally the parents of our children and we are also legally married. Neither has anything to do with the other. Without the wife, I'd still get the tax breaks for the children and without the children, I'd still get the tax breaks for the wife. (and we'd both still legally be their parents)

Hope it annoys you.

It obviously does. That's because he's too stupid to comprehend a homosexual couple who adopts is legally the same as a heterosexual couple who adopts. It drives him crazy that such folks receive government benefits for bing married. Even worse for him, depending on the state, such couples receive even more benefits for adopting kids than they get for their own biological children.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

All of the ways in which 'other taxpayers' are being forced to 'subsidize' gay marriage are, by definition, the same ways in which gays are obliged to subsidize hetero marriages.

Right. Because it aids in the effort required to raise children. Hetero couples can procreate, homo couples can't.

When you can show me the heterosexual couple that was denied a marriage license for their inability or unwillingness to procreate, you might have a point. You can't and so you don't.

This argument is getting tired. The usual routine of using the anecdotal to try to make a larger point.
Heteros who don't but can won't. But the possibility still exists thereby warranting the protection of tax breaks, etc.
Those who can't still provide the ideal circumstance of mother/father in the event of the choice for adoption. Both cases are moot for homos.

You're right...your failed argument is getting tired. Procreation is not a requirement for civil marriage. No one is denied one for an unwillingness or inability to procreate. No one. Further destroying your argument is the fact that some couples in some states are required to prove they cannot procreate before they can civilly marry.

The final nail in your failed argument is the fact that children don't need a mother and a father, they need parents.

How Do Children In Same-Sex Adoption Fare?

Same-sex adoption study outcome:​

One University of Virginia and George Washington University same-sex adoption study came to the same conclusions.

This study researched preschool-aged children who had been adopted as babies in heterosexual adoptions and same-sex adoptions, including both lesbian and gay adoptive parents. It went beyond earlier studies by researching outside evaluations of teachers and caregivers, as well as reports by the parents.

As with other studies, this study found that the children from same-sex adoptions were as well-adjusted as those from heterosexual adoptions.

This study also researched gender identification of the children to examine how children raised with same-sex parents identified with gender-related behavior. Overall, children start exhibiting gender behavior during the preschool years, with girls wanting to play with toys like dolls, and boys wanting toys like trucks and cars. This study found that all the children showed similar gender behavior as their same-aged peers, whether they were raised by same-sex parents or by heterosexual parents.

The study did find that, as with any family, the outcomes of the children hinged on: parenting abilities overall; the stresses in the family; and the satisfaction of the parents' relationship. And, the study found that heterosexual and same-sex adoptive parents exhibited these success factors equally.

Kids need mother and father, not one of either. It doesn't mean homos can't be good parents. Kids just need both genders. Procreation was the given in the advent of marriage. One of those things its creators most likely didn't expect needed explanation.
Your argument is old, petty and defeated.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

All of the ways in which 'other taxpayers' are being forced to 'subsidize' gay marriage are, by definition, the same ways in which gays are obliged to subsidize hetero marriages.

Right. Because it aids in the effort required to raise children. Hetero couples can procreate, homo couples can't.

When you can show me the heterosexual couple that was denied a marriage license for their inability or unwillingness to procreate, you might have a point. You can't and so you don't.

100% of gay couples can't procreate. There is no point to funding it. You should have gay sex on your own dime

Are you sure about that? My children were born of a 100% gay union.

And no, as long as you straight folks are giving yourselves cash and prizes for being married, we get 'em too. Hope it annoys the **** out of you.

You made a baby through homo sex? You need to tell that to the science community.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Right. Because it aids in the effort required to raise children. Hetero couples can procreate, homo couples can't.

When you can show me the heterosexual couple that was denied a marriage license for their inability or unwillingness to procreate, you might have a point. You can't and so you don't.

100% of gay couples can't procreate. There is no point to funding it. You should have gay sex on your own dime

Are you sure about that? My children were born of a 100% gay union.

And no, as long as you straight folks are giving yourselves cash and prizes for being married, we get 'em too. Hope it annoys the **** out of you.

Yes, I'm sure. If you and your partner were the biological parents, you'd be written up in medical journals. You have a link for that?

That's not what I said. I said that our children came from a 100% gay union...not that my wife and I are the biological parents. My wife and I are their parents, however, legally and where it matters, in the heart.

My wife and I have children, Kaz just like you do. We are the ones responsible for their upbringing and care. I'll keep "subsidizing" you and you keep "subsidizing" me. You can try to get those subsidies taken away for both of us. Have fun storming the castle!

Who is the father and why did you intentionally deny those children the opportunity to be raised by their father?

 

[kaz]

100% of gay couples can't procreate. There is no point to funding it. You should have gay sex on your own dime

Are you sure about that? My children were born of a 100% gay union.

And no, as long as you straight folks are giving yourselves cash and prizes for being married, we get 'em too. Hope it annoys the **** out of you.

Yes, I'm sure. If you and your partner were the biological parents, you'd be written up in medical journals. You have a link for that?

That's not what I said. I said that our children came from a 100% gay union...not that my wife and I are the biological parents. My wife and I are their parents, however, legally and where it matters, in the heart.

My wife and I have children, Kaz just like you do. We are the ones responsible for their upbringing and care. I'll keep "subsidizing" you and you keep "subsidizing" me. You can try to get those subsidies taken away for both of us. Have fun storming the castle!

Your gay marriage had nothing to do with it, anyone can adopt or be inseminated

So? We are still legally the parents of our children and we are also legally married. Neither has anything to do with the other. Without the wife, I'd still get the tax breaks for the children and without the children, I'd still get the tax breaks for the wife. (and we'd both still legally be their parents)

Hope it annoys you.

I realize to you everything is personal in politics, but to me it isn't, I have no individual wish against you or other liberals.

In general though as a policy, it's way down the list of government atrocities in the order that I would change them

 

[kaz]

100% of gay couples can't procreate. There is no point to funding it. You should have gay sex on your own dime

Are you sure about that? My children were born of a 100% gay union.

And no, as long as you straight folks are giving yourselves cash and prizes for being married, we get 'em too. Hope it annoys the **** out of you.

Yes, I'm sure. If you and your partner were the biological parents, you'd be written up in medical journals. You have a link for that?

That's not what I said. I said that our children came from a 100% gay union...not that my wife and I are the biological parents. My wife and I are their parents, however, legally and where it matters, in the heart.

My wife and I have children, Kaz just like you do. We are the ones responsible for their upbringing and care. I'll keep "subsidizing" you and you keep "subsidizing" me. You can try to get those subsidies taken away for both of us. Have fun storming the castle!

All such siblings are created by opposite gender couplings. The sexuality is irrelevant.

So you must procreate using an opposite sex partner, whether that partner is straight or gay.

Kaz could not procreate using a same gender partner, no matter if they were straight or gay.

So? Procreation isn't parenting...unless you want to say adoptive parents aren't "real" parents. Do you want to say that? Do you want to say that the millions of couples that you ART (Assisted Reproductive Technology) aren't "real" parents?

Do you want to say that my wife and I aren't the "real" parents of our children?

you get tax breaks for raising kids, we're talking about tax breaks for producing them

 

[kaz]

All of the ways in which 'other taxpayers' are being forced to 'subsidize' gay marriage are, by definition, the same ways in which gays are obliged to subsidize hetero marriages.

Right. Because it aids in the effort required to raise children. Hetero couples can procreate, homo couples can't.

When you can show me the heterosexual couple that was denied a marriage license for their inability or unwillingness to procreate, you might have a point. You can't and so you don't.

This argument is getting tired. The usual routine of using the anecdotal to try to make a larger point.
Heteros who don't but can won't. But the possibility still exists thereby warranting the protection of tax breaks, etc.
Those who can't still provide the ideal circumstance of mother/father in the event of the choice for adoption. Both cases are moot for homos.

You're right...your failed argument is getting tired. Procreation is not a requirement for civil marriage. No one is denied one for an unwillingness or inability to procreate. No one. Further destroying your argument is the fact that some couples in some states are required to prove they cannot procreate before they can civilly marry.

The final nail in your failed argument is the fact that children don't need a mother and a father, they need parents.

How Do Children In Same-Sex Adoption Fare?

Same-sex adoption study outcome:​

One University of Virginia and George Washington University same-sex adoption study came to the same conclusions.

This study researched preschool-aged children who had been adopted as babies in heterosexual adoptions and same-sex adoptions, including both lesbian and gay adoptive parents. It went beyond earlier studies by researching outside evaluations of teachers and caregivers, as well as reports by the parents.

As with other studies, this study found that the children from same-sex adoptions were as well-adjusted as those from heterosexual adoptions.

This study also researched gender identification of the children to examine how children raised with same-sex parents identified with gender-related behavior. Overall, children start exhibiting gender behavior during the preschool years, with girls wanting to play with toys like dolls, and boys wanting toys like trucks and cars. This study found that all the children showed similar gender behavior as their same-aged peers, whether they were raised by same-sex parents or by heterosexual parents.

The study did find that, as with any family, the outcomes of the children hinged on: parenting abilities overall; the stresses in the family; and the satisfaction of the parents' relationship. And, the study found that heterosexual and same-sex adoptive parents exhibited these success factors equally.

Kids need mother and father, not one of either. It doesn't mean homos can't be good parents. Kids just need both genders. Procreation was the given in the advent of marriage. One of those things its creators most likely didn't expect needed explanation.
Your argument is old, petty and defeated.

Exactly. I'ts how humanity evolved. Again liberals show their hypocrisy when they say things like conservatives ignore 'science' in subjects like global warming and evolution. Clearly people evolved with male and female parents, men and women are different, but their liberal religion demands they ignore that obvious point ... and they do ...

 

[Seawytch]

Are you sure about that? My children were born of a 100% gay union.

And no, as long as you straight folks are giving yourselves cash and prizes for being married, we get 'em too. Hope it annoys the **** out of you.

Yes, I'm sure. If you and your partner were the biological parents, you'd be written up in medical journals. You have a link for that?

That's not what I said. I said that our children came from a 100% gay union...not that my wife and I are the biological parents. My wife and I are their parents, however, legally and where it matters, in the heart.

My wife and I have children, Kaz just like you do. We are the ones responsible for their upbringing and care. I'll keep "subsidizing" you and you keep "subsidizing" me. You can try to get those subsidies taken away for both of us. Have fun storming the castle!

All such siblings are created by opposite gender couplings. The sexuality is irrelevant.

So you must procreate using an opposite sex partner, whether that partner is straight or gay.

Kaz could not procreate using a same gender partner, no matter if they were straight or gay.

So? Procreation isn't parenting...unless you want to say adoptive parents aren't "real" parents. Do you want to say that? Do you want to say that the millions of couples that you ART (Assisted Reproductive Technology) aren't "real" parents?

Do you want to say that my wife and I aren't the "real" parents of our children?

you get tax breaks for raising kids, we're talking about tax breaks for producing them

You don't get tax breaks for producing them. Jesus where do you nutters come up with this shit?

 

[Seawytch]

All of the ways in which 'other taxpayers' are being forced to 'subsidize' gay marriage are, by definition, the same ways in which gays are obliged to subsidize hetero marriages.

Right. Because it aids in the effort required to raise children. Hetero couples can procreate, homo couples can't.

When you can show me the heterosexual couple that was denied a marriage license for their inability or unwillingness to procreate, you might have a point. You can't and so you don't.

This argument is getting tired. The usual routine of using the anecdotal to try to make a larger point.
Heteros who don't but can won't. But the possibility still exists thereby warranting the protection of tax breaks, etc.
Those who can't still provide the ideal circumstance of mother/father in the event of the choice for adoption. Both cases are moot for homos.

You're right...your failed argument is getting tired. Procreation is not a requirement for civil marriage. No one is denied one for an unwillingness or inability to procreate. No one. Further destroying your argument is the fact that some couples in some states are required to prove they cannot procreate before they can civilly marry.

The final nail in your failed argument is the fact that children don't need a mother and a father, they need parents.

How Do Children In Same-Sex Adoption Fare?

Same-sex adoption study outcome:​

One University of Virginia and George Washington University same-sex adoption study came to the same conclusions.

This study researched preschool-aged children who had been adopted as babies in heterosexual adoptions and same-sex adoptions, including both lesbian and gay adoptive parents. It went beyond earlier studies by researching outside evaluations of teachers and caregivers, as well as reports by the parents.

As with other studies, this study found that the children from same-sex adoptions were as well-adjusted as those from heterosexual adoptions.

This study also researched gender identification of the children to examine how children raised with same-sex parents identified with gender-related behavior. Overall, children start exhibiting gender behavior during the preschool years, with girls wanting to play with toys like dolls, and boys wanting toys like trucks and cars. This study found that all the children showed similar gender behavior as their same-aged peers, whether they were raised by same-sex parents or by heterosexual parents.

The study did find that, as with any family, the outcomes of the children hinged on: parenting abilities overall; the stresses in the family; and the satisfaction of the parents' relationship. And, the study found that heterosexual and same-sex adoptive parents exhibited these success factors equally.

Kids need mother and father, not one of either. It doesn't mean homos can't be good parents. Kids just need both genders. Procreation was the given in the advent of marriage. One of those things its creators most likely didn't expect needed explanation.
Your argument is old, petty and defeated.

Thanks for sharing your uneducated opinion. Saying it over and over and over and over doesn't actually make it so.

It's noted that you provide no studies or evidence...just you repeating the same opinion over and over.

We don't raise our children in bubbles so no, kids don't need a mother and a father. All the studies show they need two parents, that's it.

Seriously, how do you explain that there is no difference in outcomes between children raised by gays and children raised by straights?

 

[Pop23]

Yes, I'm sure. If you and your partner were the biological parents, you'd be written up in medical journals. You have a link for that?

That's not what I said. I said that our children came from a 100% gay union...not that my wife and I are the biological parents. My wife and I are their parents, however, legally and where it matters, in the heart.

My wife and I have children, Kaz just like you do. We are the ones responsible for their upbringing and care. I'll keep "subsidizing" you and you keep "subsidizing" me. You can try to get those subsidies taken away for both of us. Have fun storming the castle!

All such siblings are created by opposite gender couplings. The sexuality is irrelevant.

So you must procreate using an opposite sex partner, whether that partner is straight or gay.

Kaz could not procreate using a same gender partner, no matter if they were straight or gay.

So? Procreation isn't parenting...unless you want to say adoptive parents aren't "real" parents. Do you want to say that? Do you want to say that the millions of couples that you ART (Assisted Reproductive Technology) aren't "real" parents?

Do you want to say that my wife and I aren't the "real" parents of our children?

you get tax breaks for raising kids, we're talking about tax breaks for producing them

You don't get tax breaks for producing them. Jesus where do you nutters come up with this shit?

No, you must wait until they come out of the birth canal.

 

[WorldWatcher]

you get tax breaks for raising kids, we're talking about tax breaks for producing them

Could you identify, specifically please, what tax break is available to a married couple producing a child that is not available to a single person that produces a child?

Not raising mind you, but for producing.

Thank you in advance.


>>>>