Upset about Duck Dynasty and Phil being Suspended Contact A&E

True. Good demonstration.

 

Heterosexuality and procreation are two of the most natural things on the God given Earth. That's the point.

 

Gay couples can adopt. Of course they can. But we are not paying for the RAISING of the revenue stream, we are paying for the CREATION of those revenue streams. Anyone can raise a child, straight or gay or single parent or a grandparent... Hell even wolves and monkeys have shown they are capable of raising a child to adulthood. But the ONLY relationship that is capable of CREATING human children is the heterosexual relationship. Another thing, history has shown unequivocally that once the child or revenue stream is created that over time (even if one is a sociopath) the revenue stream will be overall beneficial to the economy.

Now I'd like to point out why Heteros get those benefits that homosexuals should not. Lets take two couples. We will call them Hetero Couple and Homo Couple. BOTH couples will take more out of the system in the form of marriage benefits than they put into the system to help pay for those benefits. To make the numbers easy to understand... Lets say BOTH couples take out $200,000 in marriage benefits and they both put in $100,000 in taxes. That means BOTH Hetero and Homo couple are net negative $100,000. The difference is that Homo couple is incapable of reproduction in and of themselves. So when they die their revenue stream ends as being net negative. Now Hetero couple is net neg $100,000 as well however they produced 4 children. Two of those children got married and two did not. The two that did not get married pay $50,000 into the system making up for the $100,000 that their parents were in the whole. The other two children get married and have more children and so on and so forth. That revenue stream that was created by the heterosexuals could theoretically be worth trillions of dollars to society and last for thousands of years. THAT is why we provide benefits.

And there is NO benefit that homosexuals provide that are even REMOTELY close to the benefit that procreation provides... Any benefit you could name is not even a minute fraction of a percentage of the benefit of procreation.

 

That is quite true. What that has to do with gay marriage is the mystery.

 

And let's not forget that ALL married couples receive the benefits, even if they don't have kids or cannot have kids. That pretty much refutes the argument all by itself. If it's about kids, why can you get the benefits without having any? If his argument were valid the benefits would specify having kids as a prerequisite for receiving them. But they clearly don't. Even if they did, all the gay couple would have to do is acquire a kid and VIOLA! They get the benefit, but childless heteros would not. In other words, it's just reaching for straws to try and find some basis to discriminate based on someone's personal moral views.

 

Do you only read the posts that are directed towards you? I've answered this like 4 times in the last 10 pages.

In fact it's quoted in the post that YOU just quoted. But here apparently I have to send it to you directly.

It's actually irrelevant. Think about the process. If we want to promote the idea of procreation (or the creation of new revenue streams for society) there is only one group that, in and of themselves, are capable of procreation. That group is heterosexuals. Now, we know that some heterosexuals are not willing or able to procreate. So there are basically three options. The only way to know if someone is able and willing to produce a child is to test them. So we would have to test every single married couple every year or 6 months or so to determine if they're still willing and able to have a child. That process however is extremely expensive. It's costly, inefficient and ultimately ineffective. So that's simply not feasible. That leaves us with really only two options. Either we do not provide benefits to ANYONE because we can't know who is willing and who is not willing to produce children. Or we provide benefits to the entire group of people who have the POTENTIAL for procreation (heterosexuals) and just take the hit on the people who may be unwilling or unable to procreate.

Rather than not provide benefits to anyone, we chose to provide them to the entire group. The reason homosexuals do not receive the benefits is because, in and of themselves, they are INCAPABLE of providing the benefit of procreation. Therefore we know there is absolutely no reason to subsidize them. It's simply a waste of money.

As I told him... at BEST you have an argument as to why a subsection or all heterosexuals should not receive benefits. But you have NO argument whatsoever as to why homosexuals SHOULD receive marriage benefits.

 

So your point is that I have to pay for your lifestyle! Okay so would you give up your benefits to keep gays from being married. Talk about a leach on the government

 

Absolutely I would. I'm a capitalist. I don't believe in subsidies (or benefits). Subsidies, benefits, bailouts etc etc are NOT capitalist. They are purely a socialist construct... and socialism is a disease.

I don't believe anyone should receive marriage benefits. HOWEVER... if you're going to take money out of my pocket that I need to support my family then you better have a DAMN good reason for doing so. The heterosexuals (even if I disagree) actually have a justifiable reason as to why they should receive benefits. Homosexuals do not. Heterosexuals actually provide a benefit to society that is worth FAR more than what we're paying them for marriage benefits. Homosexuals are incapable of doing so.

 

I think government should get of the business of recognizing marriage altogether. just issue a licenses of a civil union a contract for both gay and straight. let the churches decide the requirements of what is considered a marriage or not

 

Who's talking about homophobia? We're talking about religious beliefs and below, I'm talking about a psychological disorder.

Homosexuality: The Mental Illness That Went Away


[video=youtube;nEpgkSG9B3k]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEpgkSG9B3k[/video]

Treatable psychological disorder? Interesting. So when did you decide to become straight?[/QUOTE]

Interesting... a gay joke to support gaydom. Good on ya. I guess you have certain immunities from the gay community that allows you to gay bash, while defending homosexuality?

These people say you can change, which I suppose, suggests that homosexuality is treatable: http://www.peoplecanchange.com/stories/

 

Agreed and no tax benefits!

 

Copy-paste all you want, his point sinks your argument.

All heterosexual couples receive benefits regardless of their ability to pro-create. That alone tells you it is not a pre-requisite to receiving marriage benefits. They simply get them unconditionally.

Either make pro-creation a prerequisite to receiving marriage benefits or give those benefits to all regardless of their ability or desire to have children. It has to be equal, all other options are exclusionary and unconstitutional.

 

So your whole rant about why you recieve those benefits is null. Either that or you have no idea what your talking about. You or any other couples have no justifiable reason for benefits other than like an oil company you deserve them.

 

They can for people who work for them.

 

Again, your claim is bull(*)(*)(*)(*). We have people who are not disabled that get disability. Does that mean that just because some people attempt to screw the system that everybody should be able to? That's moronic... but I would expect nothing less from a homosexual supporter.

Also, if your claim is true then is it unconstitutional to deny incestuous couples the right to marry?

- - - Updated - - -

That's idiotic. You think we pay people marriage benefits because we like giving away our money? Are you crazy? We provide benefits (or subsidies) because the benefit that society receives is worth far more than the money we're paying them for marriage benefits.

 

Honey Boo Boo's mom is a Democrat - most people who watched the show are left-leaning women

 

Only tax benefit that a couple should get is for their children they support. having children should be the only reason a government should be in the business for promoting marriage to begin with. having children is what benefits society in a marriage

 

Keep trying to tell yourself that lol. To funny! Like I said in an earlier post cite the 1000 benefits married couple recieve and how they benefit the United States as you claim that why they are being paid. You should have no problem with this. You have proven no point other than stating and restating what you believe is the truth.

 

In Polynesia, before the time of the Christian missionaries, their indigenous belief system held that the relation between a younger male and his older male mentor was stronger than that between the male and a female. The male could learn more valuable male things from the older male. A similar idea is present within Ancient Greek society.

That's the American Left. I'm a true leftist, and I say the American Left is a false version of Liberalism. You should know from the thread on PR, I'm not adversarial. I do not see enemies within the political system. The only reason Obama wants to shut down conservatives is that in damaging his political rival is his only way of consolidating further power for his partisans.

 

Here's the HUGE flaw in your analogy. Heterosexual couples who have no ability or desire to have children are not committing fraud. They can scream to the top of their lungs that they will never ever ever have children, guess what? They'll get marriage benefits regardless. They don't have to "screw the system" because the system says they're eligible for subsides the moment they're married NOT the moment they have children.

 

I already PROVED the citizens of this country pay for those marriage benefits. Both directly and indirectly. I'll be happy to post it for you again since you simply ignored it the first time.

 

Wrong again. It IS fraud by the definition if the word. It is simply not illegal to do so because the alternative is too costly or to provide benefits to no one.

But that doesn't mean we should pay another group that we KNOW are incapable of providing the benefit. That's retarded. At BEST you have an argument for why certain heterosexuals should not receive benes but u have NO argument why homosexuals should.

 

heterosexuality is the default mode it isn't a choice it is that way caused by natures design it has to be that way for the survival of any species so anything else is a defect a mental disorder and should be treated as a mental disorder
homosexuality isn't a choice either just like a mental disorders are not choices.

 

Why bring up married couples that are infertile, then? You're arguing in circles about nonsense. What does being allowed to marry have anything to do with your willingness to have children? There are plenty of people in this country who opt out of parenthood, to the ultimate detriment of society. We still have a sustainable child birth rate of 2.1 (not including illegal immigrants), but that's slowly declining thanks to Liberal efforts to stave off a growing population.

 

Might want to be careful... someone could misread what you said (or not read it at all) and assume that you were comparing homosexuals to rapists. There's a lesson in there somewhere.