Even if someone thinks gay mariges are ok with them, the social cost in tax money should give them pause.
11 comments
I believe Kenneth meant to say, 'Gay mirages', like when you've been wandering through the desert for days on end without gay sex and you think you see the Construction worker from the Village people only to discover halfway through fucking it that it's actually just a cactus. I agree with Kenneth, gay mirages suck.
You're correct, Kenneth.
This is why all marriages should be banned. Can you imagine how much tax money we'd save?!?!?!
Except not, because -- wait for it! -- marriage doesn't work that way.
Oh yeah, the sociopolieconomic cost. It's so much more than huge wars in distant deserts with a conspicuous lack of nuclear weapons, or giving massively huge tax breaks to yourself and your insanely rich friends for political gain.
oh wait-
Yeah, that should amount to...
0.15 bucks. (At most)
I'm sure that the war on terror and war on irak cost much, much more.
Even if that were the case (meaning if they did work that way), I'd think that the multiple marriages of heterosexual celebrities would cost us far more in taxes. Elizabeth Taylor, anyone? And it's "marriages." Learn to spell while you're at it.
I thought the fundies claimed that only 1-3 percent of the U.S. population is gay. How could the social cost of such a small minority give us pause?
Either the gay population is a good deal larger or the fundies are lying bigots.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.