Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[Syriusly]

Well then your argument is with Kaz- he is the one who started this thread whining about 'gay mating'

I don't know who Kaz is, but I haven't argued with a Kaz as far as it pertains to this subject about whether gays can procreate. But anyone who thinks gays or lesbians can procreate is an idiot.

So you never even read the title of this thread?

Talk about an idiot- you don't even know what this thread is.

What an idiot.

I know what the title of the thread is. What does the title have to do with this Kaz?

I don't know how I can dumb this down enough for you

Kaz started this thread
Kaz stated "Why should taxpayers subsidize gay mating"
You claimed that gays cannot mate
I pointed out that logically then your argument is with Kaz

You have remained baffled by this ever since.

Title of thread 'gay mating'- you: 'gays can't mate' - hence your argument is with Kaz.

I didn't read the OP, I went straight to page 150.

If you don't have an argument with me, than why are you arguing with me? Gays cant procreate or "mate", yet you and the *** brigade have been playing word games and insisting otherwise for pages.

What a not surprising confession of intentional ignorance.

You apparently didn't even read the title of the thread.

Why am I arguing with you?

Because its fun showing what a bigot and an idiot you are.

 

[Steinlight]

As far as I know, invitro involves the couple's sperm and egg. So they are procreating with each other. Last I checked, a gay couple only has sperm, and a lesbian one eggs, so no, they aren't procreating with each other.

I don't know where you got this idea I oppose invitro-fertilization, the poz must be getting to your brain you disgusting ******.

Invitro requires a sperm and an egg- anyone's.
But I didn't specify invitro- I mentioned where one or both of the couple are infertile- if the man is infertile, then the couple would use a sperm donor, if the woman is infertile they would use an egg donor, or even a surrogate.

Gay and lesbian couples do exactly what hetero couples do when they are missing any of the ingredients.

You of course hate gays- because well they are gays- and you have lots of hate for them and lots of other people.

Maybe you hate all infertile couples- that wouldn't surprise me.

If a straight couple is using another person's egg or sperm, they aren't procreating together, they are procreating who produced the egg or sperm.

Infertile couples aren't immoral degenerates who are proud of it, I have no problem with them.

Great- so your problem is just with your bigotry towards homosexuals.

Reproduction is just another tool you abuse in order to attack homosexuals because of your bigotry.

Not a tool, a biological reality, they are evolutionary/genetic dead ends that haven't developed the drive of attraction to procreate with the opposite sex. Their lifestyle should not be promoted.

'Immoral degenerates' and 'you disgusting faggots' isn't a biological argument. That's just your personal bigotry.

And clearly underpopulation isn't a problem we're facing. So your 'genetic dead end' logic is pointless.

Worse, many gays and lesbians use artificial insemination or surrogacy to have their own genetic children. So your logic breaks again.

And finally, unless your view of sexuality is that its a matter of marketing....with your heterosexuality just a quirk of which team got to you first, then your 'promoting your lifestyle' schtick is meaningless. If you're straight, a gay couple getting married isn't gonna make you gay.

There's just no way your argument works.

Underpopulation is a problem the West is facing, birthrates are below the replacement rate. So if you care about entitlements and the welfare, then yes, underpopulation is an issue.

This is not the issue here though. Gays are biological defectives that don't have the drive to procreate with the opposite sex like the rest of humanity.

Two gay men or two lesbian women cannot have their own children as a couple. So no, you are wrong.

No one said gay marriage will make someone who isn't gay get gay married. But what are you suggesting, that variation in environment doesn't effect human behavior?

You are a silly woman that has an argument purely based on emotion, you just think it is "mean" that we can't let the totally clean cut gay guys you see from TV play house or something.

 

[Steinlight]

I don't know who Kaz is, but I haven't argued with a Kaz as far as it pertains to this subject about whether gays can procreate. But anyone who thinks gays or lesbians can procreate is an idiot.

So you never even read the title of this thread?

Talk about an idiot- you don't even know what this thread is.

What an idiot.

I know what the title of the thread is. What does the title have to do with this Kaz?

I don't know how I can dumb this down enough for you

Kaz started this thread
Kaz stated "Why should taxpayers subsidize gay mating"
You claimed that gays cannot mate
I pointed out that logically then your argument is with Kaz

You have remained baffled by this ever since.

Title of thread 'gay mating'- you: 'gays can't mate' - hence your argument is with Kaz.

I didn't read the OP, I went straight to page 150.

If you don't have an argument with me, than why are you arguing with me? Gays cant procreate or "mate", yet you and the *** brigade have been playing word games and insisting otherwise for pages.

What a not surprising confession of intentional ignorance.

You apparently didn't even read the title of the thread.

Why am I arguing with you?

Because its fun showing what a bigot and an idiot you are.

The title of this thread doesn't say anything about Kaz.

You are the idiot, since you insist on arguing with me on whether gays can procreate, which they can't and what I have been saying all along.

I am definitely a bigot though, for sure.

 

[Steinlight]

If a straight couple is using another person's egg or sperm, they aren't procreating together, they are procreating who produced the egg or sperm.

Infertile couples aren't immoral degenerates who are proud of it, I have no problem with them.

Great- so your problem is just with your bigotry towards homosexuals.

Reproduction is just another tool you abuse in order to attack homosexuals because of your bigotry.

Not a tool, a biological reality, they are evolutionary/genetic dead ends that haven't developed the drive of attraction to procreate with the opposite sex. Their lifestyle should not be promoted.

Then don't promote their lifestyle- no one will force you to have sex with any homosexual.

Like I said- your problem is just with your bigotry towards homosexuals.

Promoting the lifestyle includes providing them government licenses for marriage, giving them tax breaks, benefits etc for their lifestyle, also the government promotes the lifestyle by forcing businesses to serve them. Society should only promote the traditional nuclear family, no polygamy, no homosexuality etc.

Society should follow its own tenets of due process of law and equal protection. There's simply no rational reason to deny gays and lesbians marriage. Nor does denying them serve a valid state interest or a legitimate legislative purpose.

Worse, it harms their children by the 10s of thousands. While benefiting no child.

No it shouldn't, treating someone's sexual quirk as a matter of protection under the law is absurd. They are not a legitimate class under the law due to their sexual preference.

Children are harmed by being adopted by homosexuals, measurably to being adopted by heterosexuals, a great reason right there to oppose homosexual marriage. Also, this anything goes attitude of the sexual libertine where we equate under the law the traditional family to the homosexual couple breeds anomie, breeding further atomization, nihilism, and social/community fracture by reducing relations to something purely transaction and for individual convenience.

 

[Skylar]

Underpopulation is a problem the West is facing, birthrates are below the replacement rate. So if you care about entitlements and the welfare, then yes, underpopulation is an issue.

Our population is growing up 10% in the last 10 years. So no, its not a problem we're facing. And you've already shown your hand with your 'immoral degenerates' and 'disgusting faggots' nonsense, bigot.

This is not the issue here though. Gays are biological defectives that don't have the drive to procreate with the opposite sex like the rest of humanity.

What is the issue? They don't want to have straight sex, so they are 'immoral degenerates' and 'disgusting faggots'? That's just arbitrary name calling and pointless bigotry.

Worse, if their issues are biological, as you claim, then what's the issue with their lifestyle being 'promoted'? Does someone watching a same sex wedding have the DNA changed so that they suddenly become gay? Of course not.

So far you've established no reason to oppose them. Or same sex marriage.

Two gay men or two lesbian women cannot have their own children as a couple. So no, you are wrong.

I didn't say lesbian 'couples'. I said gays and lesbians. And yes, they have their own genetic children all the time through surrogacy or invetro fertilization. Absolutely obliterating your 'genetic dead end' nonsense.

As yes, a biological child of a lesbian or gay man has their parents DNA.

No one said gay marriage will make someone who isn't gay get gay married.

Then what is the harm in their lifestyle being 'promoted'? If gay is a biological function, then it won't matter. Straights are still going to be straight. Gays are still going to be gay. Promotion or oppression won't change either factor.

But what are you suggesting, that variation in environment doesn't effect human behavior?

What human behavior? As you just acknowledged, gay marriage isn't going to make someone who isn't gay 'get gay married'. So what behavior are you speaking of?

You have yet to establish a reason why I would ever oppose gays or gay marriage.

You are a silly woman that has an argument purely based on emotion, you just think it is "mean" that we can't let the totally clean cut gay guys you see from TV play house or something.

Damn....you're still butt hurt about that spanking I gave you regarding incarceration and crime. Just because I made you back pedal and abandon your argument doesn't mean we can't be civil.

 

[Syriusly]

Invitro requires a sperm and an egg- anyone's.
But I didn't specify invitro- I mentioned where one or both of the couple are infertile- if the man is infertile, then the couple would use a sperm donor, if the woman is infertile they would use an egg donor, or even a surrogate.

Gay and lesbian couples do exactly what hetero couples do when they are missing any of the ingredients.

You of course hate gays- because well they are gays- and you have lots of hate for them and lots of other people.

Maybe you hate all infertile couples- that wouldn't surprise me.

If a straight couple is using another person's egg or sperm, they aren't procreating together, they are procreating who produced the egg or sperm.

Infertile couples aren't immoral degenerates who are proud of it, I have no problem with them.

Great- so your problem is just with your bigotry towards homosexuals.

Reproduction is just another tool you abuse in order to attack homosexuals because of your bigotry.

Not a tool, a biological reality, they are evolutionary/genetic dead ends that haven't developed the drive of attraction to procreate with the opposite sex. Their lifestyle should not be promoted.

'Immoral degenerates' and 'you disgusting faggots' isn't a biological argument. That's just your personal bigotry.

And clearly underpopulation isn't a problem we're facing. So your 'genetic dead end' logic is pointless.

Worse, many gays and lesbians use artificial insemination or surrogacy to have their own genetic children. So your logic breaks again.

And finally, unless your view of sexuality is that its a matter of marketing....with your heterosexuality just a quirk of which team got to you first, then your 'promoting your lifestyle' schtick is meaningless. If you're straight, a gay couple getting married isn't gonna make you gay.

There's just no way your argument works.

Underpopulation is a problem the West is facing, birthrates are below the replacement rate. So if you care about entitlements and the welfare, then yes, underpopulation is an issue.
.

We don't have an underpopulation problem here in the United States. Yes people are having less children than replacement- essentially, white middle class and wealthy are not having enough children, while poor minorities are- we have more than enough immigrants to make up for that.

We are not like Japan or Russia.

But of course homosexuality doesn't change that one bit. You object to homosexuals having children because you just are bigoted towards homosexuals.

 

[Skylar]

Great- so your problem is just with your bigotry towards homosexuals.

Reproduction is just another tool you abuse in order to attack homosexuals because of your bigotry.

Not a tool, a biological reality, they are evolutionary/genetic dead ends that haven't developed the drive of attraction to procreate with the opposite sex. Their lifestyle should not be promoted.

Then don't promote their lifestyle- no one will force you to have sex with any homosexual.

Like I said- your problem is just with your bigotry towards homosexuals.

Promoting the lifestyle includes providing them government licenses for marriage, giving them tax breaks, benefits etc for their lifestyle, also the government promotes the lifestyle by forcing businesses to serve them. Society should only promote the traditional nuclear family, no polygamy, no homosexuality etc.

Society should follow its own tenets of due process of law and equal protection. There's simply no rational reason to deny gays and lesbians marriage. Nor does denying them serve a valid state interest or a legitimate legislative purpose.

Worse, it harms their children by the 10s of thousands. While benefiting no child.

No it shouldn't, treating someone's sexual quirk as a matter of protection under the law is absurd. They are not a legitimate class under the law due to their sexual preference.

Says who? How does being gay make you not a 'legitimate class'? You're merely applying an arbitrary label and then insisting we should strip rights from millions of people based on the label.

But who says your 'legitimate class' label is legitimate? Gays are protected under the law. If you don't think so, check out Romer v. Evans and Lawerence v. Texas.

Children are harmed by being adopted by homosexuals, measurably to being adopted by heterosexuals, a great reason right there to oppose homosexual marriage.

Says who? You're just applying more arbitrary labels. And given your obvious animus toward gays ("immoral degenerates" and "disgusting faggots "ring any bells?), why would any rational person give your arbitrary labels any objective weight?

And of course, being married isn't a requirement of adoption in any State but Utah.

And the dichotomy isn't 'adopted by gays v adopted by straights'. Its adopted by gays or not being adopted. Remember, there are more than 100,000 orphans who NEVER get adopted. You may believe its better for a child to be raised in state custody than being adopted by gays. But most of the nation wouldn't be with you.

Worse for your claims, gays and lesbians have their own kids all the time. And denying marriage hurts these children while benefiting no child.

Also, this anything goes attitude of the sexual libertine where we equate under the law the traditional family to the homosexual couple breeds anomie, breeding further atomization, nihilism, and social/community fracture by reducing relations to something purely transaction and for individual convenience.

Says you. Yet in the 10 years since Massechussetts legalized gay marriage......the marriage rate is virtully unchanged. If gay marriage causes straight marriage to 'atomize', then why didn't it?

Causation is just not a friend to virtually any of your arguments.

 

[Syriusly]

So you never even read the title of this thread?

Talk about an idiot- you don't even know what this thread is.

What an idiot.

I know what the title of the thread is. What does the title have to do with this Kaz?

I don't know how I can dumb this down enough for you

Kaz started this thread
Kaz stated "Why should taxpayers subsidize gay mating"
You claimed that gays cannot mate
I pointed out that logically then your argument is with Kaz

You have remained baffled by this ever since.

Title of thread 'gay mating'- you: 'gays can't mate' - hence your argument is with Kaz.

I didn't read the OP, I went straight to page 150.

If you don't have an argument with me, than why are you arguing with me? Gays cant procreate or "mate", yet you and the *** brigade have been playing word games and insisting otherwise for pages.

What a not surprising confession of intentional ignorance.

You apparently didn't even read the title of the thread.

Why am I arguing with you?

Because its fun showing what a bigot and an idiot you are.

The title of this thread doesn't say anything about Kaz.

You are the idiot, since you insist on arguing with me on whether gays can procreate, which they can't and what I have been saying all along.

I am definitely a bigot though, for sure.

Damn you are an idiot.

You jump into the thread, not even knowing what it was about, and then are shocked when I point out your self inflicted ignorance.

Not surprising- but fun to point out.

 

[Syriusly]

Invitro requires a sperm and an egg- anyone's.
But I didn't specify invitro- I mentioned where one or both of the couple are infertile- if the man is infertile, then the couple would use a sperm donor, if the woman is infertile they would use an egg donor, or even a surrogate.

Gay and lesbian couples do exactly what hetero couples do when they are missing any of the ingredients.

You of course hate gays- because well they are gays- and you have lots of hate for them and lots of other people.

Maybe you hate all infertile couples- that wouldn't surprise me.

If a straight couple is using another person's egg or sperm, they aren't procreating together, they are procreating who produced the egg or sperm.

Infertile couples aren't immoral degenerates who are proud of it, I have no problem with them.

Great- so your problem is just with your bigotry towards homosexuals.

Reproduction is just another tool you abuse in order to attack homosexuals because of your bigotry.

Not a tool, a biological reality, they are evolutionary/genetic dead ends that haven't developed the drive of attraction to procreate with the opposite sex. Their lifestyle should not be promoted.

'Immoral degenerates' and 'you disgusting faggots' isn't a biological argument. That's just your personal bigotry.

And clearly underpopulation isn't a problem we're facing. So your 'genetic dead end' logic is pointless.

Worse, many gays and lesbians use artificial insemination or surrogacy to have their own genetic children. So your logic breaks again.

And finally, unless your view of sexuality is that its a matter of marketing....with your heterosexuality just a quirk of which team got to you first, then your 'promoting your lifestyle' schtick is meaningless. If you're straight, a gay couple getting married isn't gonna make you gay.

There's just no way your argument works.

Two gay men or two lesbian women cannot have their own children as a couple. So no, you are wrong.
.

Two gay men or two lesbian women can have their own children as a couple the same way as millions of hetero couples have their own children- through sperm or egg donation, through surrogacy and through adoption.

You just whine because they are homosexuals, and you are a bigot.

 

[Syriusly]

Great- so your problem is just with your bigotry towards homosexuals.

Reproduction is just another tool you abuse in order to attack homosexuals because of your bigotry.

Not a tool, a biological reality, they are evolutionary/genetic dead ends that haven't developed the drive of attraction to procreate with the opposite sex. Their lifestyle should not be promoted.

Then don't promote their lifestyle- no one will force you to have sex with any homosexual.

Like I said- your problem is just with your bigotry towards homosexuals.

Promoting the lifestyle includes providing them government licenses for marriage, giving them tax breaks, benefits etc for their lifestyle, also the government promotes the lifestyle by forcing businesses to serve them. Society should only promote the traditional nuclear family, no polygamy, no homosexuality etc.

Society should follow its own tenets of due process of law and equal protection. There's simply no rational reason to deny gays and lesbians marriage. Nor does denying them serve a valid state interest or a legitimate legislative purpose.

Worse, it harms their children by the 10s of thousands. While benefiting no child.

Children are harmed by being adopted by homosexuals, measurably to being adopted by heterosexuals,.

Says who? You- the bigot?

The children being adopted by homosexuals are overwhelmingly either the offspring of one of them- so you would prefer to deny them a second parent- or children abandoned by their biological heterosexual parents.

It is telling that you care only about the potential harm caused by a loving couple who want to give a home to children- but not about the certain harm caused by the biological parents who abandoned them.

 

[Steinlight]

Our population is growing up 10% in the last 10 years. So no, its not a problem we're facing. And you've already shown your hand with your 'immoral degenerates' and 'disgusting faggots' nonsense, bigot.



What is the issue? They don't want to have straight sex, so they are 'immoral degenerates' and 'disgusting faggots'? That's just arbitrary name calling and pointless bigotry.

Worse, if their issues are biological, as you claim, then what's the issue with their lifestyle being 'promoted'? Does someone watching a same sex wedding have the DNA changed so that they suddenly become gay? Of course not.

So far you've established no reason to oppose them. Or same sex marriage.

I didn't say lesbian 'couples'. I said gays and lesbians. And yes, they have their own genetic children all the time through surrogacy or invetro fertilization. Absolutely obliterating your 'genetic dead end' nonsense.

As yes, a biological child of a lesbian or gay man has their parents DNA.


What human behavior? As you just acknowledged, gay marriage isn't going to make someone who isn't gay 'get gay married'. So what behavior are you speaking of?


Damn....you're still butt hurt about that spanking I gave you regarding incarceration and crime. Just because I made you back pedal and abandon your argument doesn't mean we can't be civil.

It isn't growing fast enough, and the deficit from below replacement birth rates has required immigration to fill the void. So yes, it is a problem. You need to learn what below replacement birthrates are. Most European societies are below 2.1, the replacement rate, and closer to one, and the US is 1.8.

Yes, I am a bigot, that isn't and argument against the population growth or gay marriage, that is a purely emotional argument.

It isn't arbitrary, they are defective and abnormal. And under our shared Christian morality and basic human nature, the depravity of the homosexual, specifically the male homosexuality(there large amounts of partners, their contraction of disease, their proclivity towards mental illness and other anti-social behavior) makes them immoral degenerates and disgusting.

They are biologically defective? Yes, in the sense they don't procreate. Is their behavior purely based on a gay gene? I don't think so. I think like all human behavior, it is based on both genetic and environmental variation. Gregory Cochran has proposed a "gay germ" theory.

No one said a gay marriage will make straight people get gay married. so I don't know what your argument is here. You are off on one of your autistic tangents again.

I have given a reason, for one, children adopted by homosexual are measurably harmed and disadvantaged versus being adopted by heterosexual couples. It breeds societal anomie, furthering atomization, nihilism and further social fracture by reducing human relations to purely transactional relations based on individual convenience as opposed to family formation and procreation. This has social implications. Homosexual marriage advocacy is a product of a hyperliberal, nihilistic atomized, and out of scale society society more than it is a cause.

One gay man can have a child from the egg of another woman, not the sperm of their male partner. So no, a gay couple or lesbian couple cannot procreate and have their own child.

You said homosexuality is genetic. What evidence do you have that sexual preference, is purely genetic? Other human behaviors are determined generally by both genetic and environmental variation. Why would homosexuality be different?

You mean the argument that proved incarceration reduced crime by 25%, and you said it had nothing to do with it? Argument where you avoiding admitting whites are safer in white areas than black areas? Yea, you are a real master debater.

 

[Steinlight]

If a straight couple is using another person's egg or sperm, they aren't procreating together, they are procreating who produced the egg or sperm.

Infertile couples aren't immoral degenerates who are proud of it, I have no problem with them.

Great- so your problem is just with your bigotry towards homosexuals.

Reproduction is just another tool you abuse in order to attack homosexuals because of your bigotry.

Not a tool, a biological reality, they are evolutionary/genetic dead ends that haven't developed the drive of attraction to procreate with the opposite sex. Their lifestyle should not be promoted.

'Immoral degenerates' and 'you disgusting faggots' isn't a biological argument. That's just your personal bigotry.

And clearly underpopulation isn't a problem we're facing. So your 'genetic dead end' logic is pointless.

Worse, many gays and lesbians use artificial insemination or surrogacy to have their own genetic children. So your logic breaks again.

And finally, unless your view of sexuality is that its a matter of marketing....with your heterosexuality just a quirk of which team got to you first, then your 'promoting your lifestyle' schtick is meaningless. If you're straight, a gay couple getting married isn't gonna make you gay.

There's just no way your argument works.

Two gay men or two lesbian women cannot have their own children as a couple. So no, you are wrong.
.

Two gay men or two lesbian women can have their own children as a couple the same way as millions of hetero couples have their own children- through sperm or egg donation, through surrogacy and through adoption.

You just whine because they are homosexuals, and you are a bigot.

It isn't "their child", genetically it is only one of the parent's child, because sperm and sperm or an egg an egg cannot make a child.

 

[Steinlight]

Not a tool, a biological reality, they are evolutionary/genetic dead ends that haven't developed the drive of attraction to procreate with the opposite sex. Their lifestyle should not be promoted.

Then don't promote their lifestyle- no one will force you to have sex with any homosexual.

Like I said- your problem is just with your bigotry towards homosexuals.

Promoting the lifestyle includes providing them government licenses for marriage, giving them tax breaks, benefits etc for their lifestyle, also the government promotes the lifestyle by forcing businesses to serve them. Society should only promote the traditional nuclear family, no polygamy, no homosexuality etc.

Society should follow its own tenets of due process of law and equal protection. There's simply no rational reason to deny gays and lesbians marriage. Nor does denying them serve a valid state interest or a legitimate legislative purpose.

Worse, it harms their children by the 10s of thousands. While benefiting no child.

Children are harmed by being adopted by homosexuals, measurably to being adopted by heterosexuals,.

Says who? You- the bigot?

The children being adopted by homosexuals are overwhelmingly either the offspring of one of them- so you would prefer to deny them a second parent- or children abandoned by their biological heterosexual parents.

It is telling that you care only about the potential harm caused by a loving couple who want to give a home to children- but not about the certain harm caused by the biological parents who abandoned them.

Children are better off with a mother and father than in a homosexual couple's home, measurably so. Whether it is by income, education attainment, criminal record(lack thereof), depression, drug use etc.

I would rather gays not make test tube babies, absolutely.

 

[Skylar]

It isn't growing fast enough, and the deficit from below replacement birth rates has required immigration to fill the void.

The 10% increase in the US over the last 10 years refutes your entire 'underpopulation' argument.

Yes, I am a bigot, that isn't and argument against the population growth or gay marriage, that is a purely emotional argument.

Its immediately relevant when you are are citing yourself as a source. And whenever you apply an arbitrary label that you define as a basis of discrimination, then your source on that label is fair game.

And your source is obviously neither impartial nor objective. But fiercely bigoted, biased and rabidly anti-gay. It would be like quoting Green Peace on global warming. And in your case its worse. As in addition to being fiercely bigoted and rabidly biased.....you also have no idea what you're talking about. You're literally making these labels up as you go along.

Making all of your 'legitimate class' babble pointless subjective opinion from an admitted biased anti-gay bigot. Which has no objective or rational value.

You're allowing your animus toward gays to drive you. And we don't base our laws on your feelings.

It isn't arbitrary, they are defective and abnormal. And under our shared Christian morality and basic human nature, the depravity of the homosexual, specifically the male homosexuality(there large amounts of partners, their contraction of disease, their proclivity towards mental illness and other anti-social behavior) makes them immoral degenerates and disgusting.

Our laws are not bound to 'Christian morality' as demonstrated elegantly by the fact that we don't execute gay people anymore. Your 'legitimate class' nonsense is just you trying to impose your personal religious beliefs onto our law.

Sorry, but Christian Sharia isn't how we operate. Nor should operate. Nor do we strip anyone of their rights because of your personal bigotry.

No thank you.

They are biologically defective? Yes, in the sense they don't procreate. Is their behavior purely based on a gay gene? I don't think so. I think like all human behavior, it is based on both genetic and environmental variation. Gregory Cochran has proposed a "gay germ" theory.

Which has exactly nothing to do with 'promoting the gay lifestyle'. Cochran doesn't even argue that the 'gay germ' is passed by exposure to gays. And its nothing anyone is going to catch if gay marriage is legalized.

Your 'cause' (gay marriage) has nothing to do with your effect (more gays). Your argument breaks on an issue of causation again. You'll probably want to look into that.

No one said a gay marriage will make straight people get gay married. so I don't know what your argument is here. You are off on one of your autistic tangents again.

Laughing....calling people 'autistic' already? Just an FYI...that's your tell. Its where your argument goes off the rails. Watch:

Quote me saying that a gay marriage will make straight people get gay married or arguing that anyone did. That's your strawman. You're refuting arguments that no one is making. While ignoring the arguments that shred your claims. If your claims had merit, you wouldn't need to lean so heavily on the strawman fallacy.

I've said that seeing a gay wedding won't make you gay. And that your 'promotion of the gay lifestyle' nonsense is thus irrelevant to if an observer of one is gay or straight.

I have given a reason, for one, children adopted by homosexual are measurably harmed and disadvantaged versus being adopted by heterosexual couples. It breeds societal anomie, furthering atomization, nihilism and further social fracture by reducing human relations to purely transactional relations based on individual convenience as opposed to family formation and procreation.

Says you. These are merely accusations. But your argument breaks again on issues of causation. You can't connect your 'cause' and your 'effect' as having any causal relationship with evidence. You merely insist it must be so. Citing yourself.

Where your personal animus and bigotry toward gays becomes relevant again. As your source (you) is wildly biased and spectacularly uninformed. Rendering you citing yourself an excercise in merely baseless bigoted opinion.

Which has no particular objective value.

Meanwhile, history kicks the shit out of your little theory. As gay marriage has been legal in Massechussetts for 10 years. And the marriage rate is virtually unchanged. If gay marriage causes traditional marriage to 'atomize' then why didn't it?

You have no explanation. You merely have baseless assertions which you can't factually support with anything but your ability to type them. Which are objectively meaningless.

Once again the bug of your personal opinion runs into the windshield of history.

One gay man can have a child from the egg of another woman, not the sperm of their male partner. So no, a gay couple or lesbian couple cannot procreate and have their own child.

Wrong again, Captain Strawman. I never said that a gay COUPLE can have kids. You're refuting arguments that haven't been made.

I said that gays and lesbians can and do have their own biological children. Even describing the process: artificial insemination Debunking your absurd 'genetic dead end' nonsense. As a gay or lesbian parents has as much genetic investment in their biological children as any heterosexual parent.

 

[Syriusly]

Our population is growing up 10% in the last 10 years. So no, its not a problem we're facing. And you've already shown your hand with your 'immoral degenerates' and 'disgusting faggots' nonsense, bigot.



What is the issue? They don't want to have straight sex, so they are 'immoral degenerates' and 'disgusting faggots'? That's just arbitrary name calling and pointless bigotry.

Worse, if their issues are biological, as you claim, then what's the issue with their lifestyle being 'promoted'? Does someone watching a same sex wedding have the DNA changed so that they suddenly become gay? Of course not.

So far you've established no reason to oppose them. Or same sex marriage.

I didn't say lesbian 'couples'. I said gays and lesbians. And yes, they have their own genetic children all the time through surrogacy or invetro fertilization. Absolutely obliterating your 'genetic dead end' nonsense.

As yes, a biological child of a lesbian or gay man has their parents DNA.


What human behavior? As you just acknowledged, gay marriage isn't going to make someone who isn't gay 'get gay married'. So what behavior are you speaking of?


Damn....you're still butt hurt about that spanking I gave you regarding incarceration and crime. Just because I made you back pedal and abandon your argument doesn't mean we can't be civil.

It isn't growing fast enough, and the deficit from below replacement birth rates has required immigration to fill the void. So yes, it is a problem. You need to learn what below replacement birthrates are. Most European societies are below 2.1, the replacement rate, and closer to one, and the US is 1.8.
.

And none of that has anything to do with gay marriage- indeed encouraging homosexuals to marry would only increase population growth, as homosexual couples that marry will have more protections to encourage them to have children.

 

[Syriusly]

Then don't promote their lifestyle- no one will force you to have sex with any homosexual.

Like I said- your problem is just with your bigotry towards homosexuals.

Promoting the lifestyle includes providing them government licenses for marriage, giving them tax breaks, benefits etc for their lifestyle, also the government promotes the lifestyle by forcing businesses to serve them. Society should only promote the traditional nuclear family, no polygamy, no homosexuality etc.

Society should follow its own tenets of due process of law and equal protection. There's simply no rational reason to deny gays and lesbians marriage. Nor does denying them serve a valid state interest or a legitimate legislative purpose.

Worse, it harms their children by the 10s of thousands. While benefiting no child.

Children are harmed by being adopted by homosexuals, measurably to being adopted by heterosexuals,.

Says who? You- the bigot?

The children being adopted by homosexuals are overwhelmingly either the offspring of one of them- so you would prefer to deny them a second parent- or children abandoned by their biological heterosexual parents.

It is telling that you care only about the potential harm caused by a loving couple who want to give a home to children- but not about the certain harm caused by the biological parents who abandoned them.

Children are better off with a mother and father than in a homosexual couple's home, measurably so. Whether it is by income, education attainment, criminal record(lack thereof), depression, drug use etc.
y.

Except it isn't measurably so- that is just your bigoted opinion.

Children are best off with their parents- with having parents or a parent that is willing and able to provide parenting for them.

Children are measurably better off with parents that give a damn, regardless of whether they are straight or gay.

 

[Syriusly]

Great- so your problem is just with your bigotry towards homosexuals.

Reproduction is just another tool you abuse in order to attack homosexuals because of your bigotry.

Not a tool, a biological reality, they are evolutionary/genetic dead ends that haven't developed the drive of attraction to procreate with the opposite sex. Their lifestyle should not be promoted.

'Immoral degenerates' and 'you disgusting faggots' isn't a biological argument. That's just your personal bigotry.

And clearly underpopulation isn't a problem we're facing. So your 'genetic dead end' logic is pointless.

Worse, many gays and lesbians use artificial insemination or surrogacy to have their own genetic children. So your logic breaks again.

And finally, unless your view of sexuality is that its a matter of marketing....with your heterosexuality just a quirk of which team got to you first, then your 'promoting your lifestyle' schtick is meaningless. If you're straight, a gay couple getting married isn't gonna make you gay.

There's just no way your argument works.

Two gay men or two lesbian women cannot have their own children as a couple. So no, you are wrong.
.

Two gay men or two lesbian women can have their own children as a couple the same way as millions of hetero couples have their own children- through sperm or egg donation, through surrogacy and through adoption.

You just whine because they are homosexuals, and you are a bigot.

It isn't "their child", genetically it is only one of the parent's child, because sperm and sperm or an egg an egg cannot make a child.

Sure is their child.

Here is a picture of Bob and Dolores Hope with their children

All 4 children adopted.

Now you would say that those children are not Bob and Dolore's children- I would say only an asshole would say such a thing- parents are the people who raise the kids- not just the ones who leave a sperm donation.

 

[Syriusly]

Our population is growing up 10% in the last 10 years. So no, its not a problem we're facing. And you've already shown your hand with your 'immoral degenerates' and 'disgusting faggots' nonsense, bigot.



What is the issue? They don't want to have straight sex, so they are 'immoral degenerates' and 'disgusting faggots'? That's just arbitrary name calling and pointless bigotry.

Worse, if their issues are biological, as you claim, then what's the issue with their lifestyle being 'promoted'? Does someone watching a same sex wedding have the DNA changed so that they suddenly become gay? Of course not.

So far you've established no reason to oppose them. Or same sex marriage.

I didn't say lesbian 'couples'. I said gays and lesbians. And yes, they have their own genetic children all the time through surrogacy or invetro fertilization. Absolutely obliterating your 'genetic dead end' nonsense.

As yes, a biological child of a lesbian or gay man has their parents DNA.


What human behavior? As you just acknowledged, gay marriage isn't going to make someone who isn't gay 'get gay married'. So what behavior are you speaking of?


Damn....you're still butt hurt about that spanking I gave you regarding incarceration and crime. Just because I made you back pedal and abandon your argument doesn't mean we can't be civil.

It isn't growing fast enough, and the deficit from below replacement birth rates has required immigration to fill the void. So yes, it is a problem. You need to learn what below replacement birthrates are. Most European societies are below 2.1, the replacement rate, and closer to one, and the US is 1.8.

Yes, I am a bigot, that isn't and argument against the population growth or gay marriage, that is a purely emotional argument.

It isn't arbitrary, they are defective and abnormal. And under our shared Christian morality and basic human nature, the depravity of the homosexual,r.

Listen- I don't share any of your depraved 'Christian morality' with you.

Your bigoted and arbitrary hatred of homosexuals is frankly immaterial.
I find your attitude far more depraved than that of any two homosexuals who step up and offer to parent children abandoned by their biological parents.

 

[Steinlight]

The 10% increase in the US over the last 10 years refutes your entire 'underpopulation' argument.


Its immediately relevant when you are are citing yourself as a source. And whenever you apply an arbitrary label that you define as a basis of discrimination, then your source on that label is fair game.

Making all of your 'legitimate class' babble pointless subjective opinion from an admitted biased anti-gay bigot. Which has no objective or rational value.

You're allowing your animus toward gays to drive you. And we don't base our laws on your feelings.



Our laws are not bound to 'Christian morality' as demonstrated elegantly by the fact that we don't execute gay people anymore. Your 'legitimate class' nonsense is just you trying to impose your personal religious beliefs onto our law.

Which has exactly nothing to do with 'promoting the gay lifestyle'. Cochran doesn't even argue that the 'gay germ' is passed by exposure to gays. And its nothing anyone is going to catch if gay marriage is legalized.

Your 'cause' (gay marriage) has nothing to do with your effect (more gays). Your argument breaks on an issue of causation again. You'll probably want to look into that.

Laughing....calling people 'autistic' already? Just an FYI...that's your tell. Its where your argument goes off the rails.

I have given a reason, for one, children adopted by homosexual are measurably harmed and disadvantaged versus being adopted by heterosexual couples. It breeds societal anomie, furthering atomization, nihilism and further social fracture by reducing human relations to purely transactional relations based on individual convenience as opposed to family formation and procreation.

Says you. These are merely accusations. But your argument breaks again on issues of causation. You can't connect your 'cause' and your 'effect' as having any causal relationship with evidence. You merely insist it must be so. Citing yourself.

Where your personal animus and bigotry toward gays becomes relevant again. As your source (you) is wildly biased and spectacularly uninformed. Rendering you citing yourself an excercise in merely baseless bigoted opinion.

Which has no particular objective value.

Meanwhile, history kicks the shit out of your little theory. As gay marriage has been legal in Massechussetts for 10 years. And the marriage rate is virtually unchanged. If gay marriage causes traditional marriage to 'atomize' then why didn't it?

One gay man can have a child from the egg of another woman, not the sperm of their male partner. So no, a gay couple or lesbian couple cannot procreate and have their own child.

Wrong again, Captain Strawman. I never said that a gay COUPLE can have kids. You're refuting arguments that haven't been made.

I said that gays and lesbians can and do have their own biological children.

No it doesn't, if we continue at below replacement rate, we will face population decline unless we increase immigration. You can keep repeating this rehashed argument. But you cannot argue against the point that if below replacement level birthrates continue at this rate and stays at 1.8 or lower, population decline will occur. Not only this, not enough children are being born at this rate to pay for those retiring. At the 1945, there were 40 workers for each retiree. Now we are an aging population where there are only 2.9 workers, and heading towards 2 workers per retiree by 2030. With continuing dropping birth rates, the entitlement structure will become unsustainable.
How Many Workers Support One Social Security Retiree Mercatus

You are the only one making labels like bigot. But that isn't an argument. The statistics show those growing up in homosexual households are measurably more dysfunctional than their peers from heterosexual households. This isn't my bigotry, this is from their self-reporting as adults after the fact.
Family Research Council

They aren't a legitimate class. If sexual preference is a legitimate class that is offered legal protection, than you have to offer it to pedophiles as well. That isn't to say you allow them to marry persay. But for example, if you cannot discriminate for example against a homosexual in a business under the law because they are a protected class due to sexual orientation, than you also logically must serve a pedophile(who may not rape children, but admits his orientation), because you can't discriminate based on sexual preference. The idea that you have a legal identity because you prefer a man's anus if you are a dude is ridiculous and purely based on emotion.

Yes, I am trying to impose my views into law, you are trying to impose yours. Law is an expression of the society's morality, which in western society is informed by Christianity for two thousand years. You cannot detach law from morality, this makes no sense.

I never argued gay marriage makes straight people gay marry, so again, this is something you have created in your mind. You have an odd habit of doing this. What I said is that sexual preference, like human behavior is based on a combination of genetic and environmental factors. It is not based purely on genetic variation, or purely on environmental variation. What I asked you was a simple question, and you have yet to provide no answer. you just continue repeating yourself and ignoring the question. Why is homosexuality different than other human behavior, and purely based on genetic variation, and if so, what is your proof?

You are autistic, and definitely socially off. You are an emotionally driven woman that spends most your time on online boards repeating yourself. You are almost definitely ugly and fat, and without a husband, who you would be happier with.

Society is more nihilistic and atomized(I didn't say marriage becomes more atomized), relationships are more dysfunctional than they have been in the past(look at divorce rates, lower birthrates, more bastardy, more mental illness, depression, anxiety, isolation, less community participation, lower trust; for this read Putnam's work and the Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey and US Census data), this apathy and social indifference is paralleled by the rise in the homosexual rights movement, the movement is a result of a society plagued by moral indifference and atomization, people losing a sense of community and traditional relationship norms. Homosexual rights movements don't emerge in traditional patriarchal societies with high birthrates and higher marriage rates, and low out of wedlock birth rates. These movements are the product of libertinism to the extreme and hyperliberalization, and further feed this declining condition. It definitely feminizes the society, leads to androgynous gender roles, confused gender identity, and strained gender roles that has been spurred by feminism.

A gay can have a biological child by having a child with a woman, a woman's egg. They cannot have a child by having gay sex and the child will not be the couple's biologically, just one of the homosexual's children. They are genetic dead ends, sexually speaking, they are not driven towards procreation, but towards a sexual relationship where the act itself cannot make children, they have to use women to have children.

 

[Steinlight]

Not a tool, a biological reality, they are evolutionary/genetic dead ends that haven't developed the drive of attraction to procreate with the opposite sex. Their lifestyle should not be promoted.

'Immoral degenerates' and 'you disgusting faggots' isn't a biological argument. That's just your personal bigotry.

And clearly underpopulation isn't a problem we're facing. So your 'genetic dead end' logic is pointless.

Worse, many gays and lesbians use artificial insemination or surrogacy to have their own genetic children. So your logic breaks again.

And finally, unless your view of sexuality is that its a matter of marketing....with your heterosexuality just a quirk of which team got to you first, then your 'promoting your lifestyle' schtick is meaningless. If you're straight, a gay couple getting married isn't gonna make you gay.

There's just no way your argument works.

Two gay men or two lesbian women cannot have their own children as a couple. So no, you are wrong.
.

Two gay men or two lesbian women can have their own children as a couple the same way as millions of hetero couples have their own children- through sperm or egg donation, through surrogacy and through adoption.

You just whine because they are homosexuals, and you are a bigot.

It isn't "their child", genetically it is only one of the parent's child, because sperm and sperm or an egg an egg cannot make a child.

Sure is their child.

Here is a picture of Bob and Dolores Hope with their children

All 4 children adopted.

Now you would say that those children are not Bob and Dolore's children- I would say only an asshole would say such a thing- parents are the people who raise the kids- not just the ones who leave a sperm donation.

Not genetically, don't spin my words. Also, they are far better off with Bob Hope then some ******.