It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Boss]

The court ruled that those same sex marriage bans were created in opposition to the protections afforded by the constitution, protections created based on the collective morality of society.

Total load of horse shit. Nothing in the constitution gives anyone the right to create something new and call it something else that already exists then claim they have a right to do it. If a bunch of people got together and decided to make "rape marriage" a thing and then proceed to lobby the court for their equal rights, we would not allow that. (I hope)

Again, the "collective morality of society" was expressly ignored by the court and their ruling. And there was not a discrimination or denying of any constitutional protections because homosexuals could obtain a 'marriage' license anywhere in the country and not even be questioned as to their sexuality. Much as the SCOTUS had to redefine Obamacare as a tax, they had to redefine marriage as gay marriage. Society didn't decide this. If society decided anything, it was the OPPOSITE of this.

What you are now trying to tell me is... We are a free society who collectively get to establish our morality into laws except when a liberal activist court decides we're not free to do this and our collective morality isn't important. Some other idiot above mentioned my respect for the "role of the court" and that's also bullshit... the role of the court is supposed to be upholding what the Constitution and rule of law says and not what they think is morally right and wrong.

That you disagree with a court decision does not invalidate the power of the court to make the decision.

I've never said that my arguments are more valid than SCOTUS decisions. I don't know why you seem to want to think that is the argument we are having. I don't have any authority over the court nor have I claimed any.

Society absolutely gets to establish its morality into laws. This is not an exception. If society feels that the court was in error a constitutional amendment can be passed to reverse the decision. Of course, considering society is far from generally opposed to same sex marriage at this point, I don't think that's likely.

Therefore, the SCOTUS can rule sibling-marriage into law, or any fucking thing else they want, and unless society can muster the needed majorities to ratify a new Constitutional amendment, we have to live with it. You can sit here and talk about all your moralistic reasons for denying different types of relationships... it all means bunk! You can insist that things are "obvious" and that we have laws against this or that... doesn't matter anymore... SCOTUS can rule and you'll need an amendment. Your moral views, even if they are shared by most of society, do not matter anymore.

Society decided that we would have our constitution and the amendments within it. Society has decided that judiciary has the power to review laws to determine if they violate the constitution. That is what occurred.

No, it's NOT what occurred. Bans on "gay marriage" did not violate the constitution any more than bans on "sibling marriage" or "rape marriage" or "animal marriage" or any number of other things that ARE NOT marriage. SCOTUS literally had to create something that did not exist then established a constitutional right to it. This is above and beyond any authority ever envisioned for the court. Society NEVER agreed to be governed by an oligarchy of people in black robes.

As so often seems to happen, you are equating disagreement with a decision with the court being activist and overstepping their authority and whatever else you might use to describe how the court should not have been able to make the decision they did. You are far from the first person to feel that way after a USSC ruling they disagreed with.

It's NOT disagreement with their decision. It is disagreement that they should have even heard the case. The court is not there to change laws and right perceived injustices. They are charged with upholding the laws we have established without regard for their personal opinions. What they did here was to legislate a new law from the bench. That is not within their constitutional power... never has been.

It doesn't matter if I agree with their sentiments in principle or not... they aren't there to rule based on sentiment. We have a legislative branch which we elect to represent our sentiments and codify those into laws. The SCOTUS is there to uphold those laws... not rewrite them by creating new things and new rights that didn't previously exist. THAT is what I object to, not their intentions or sentiments.

Yes, homosexuals could obtain a marriage license anywhere and not be questioned as to their sexuality. Of course, a woman could obtain a marriage license to join with a man, while a man could not do the same based entirely on his gender. The court felt that violated equal access to marriage law. Sorry you disagree.

A man had exactly the same right to obtain a marriage license with a woman and it has nothing to do with gender. It has to do with the definition of marriage. The Court's "feeling" is not supposed to be the basis of their rulings. The Court may, at a future date, have "feelings" for a brother wanting to marry his sister.... or a woman wanting to marry her rottweiler. Is it alright if they want to willy-nilly change that too, based on sentiments? What about age of consent laws? What if the Court "feels" that a 12-year old should have their constitutional right to legally consent?

To me... this is the difference between an activist court and a court functioning as it was intended, it has nothing to do with my agreement with their ruling. You think the SCOTUS can rule based on their "feelings and sentiments" and I think they should rule based on law and the constitution, and in complete disregard for personal sentiments.

Upholding the constitution is not the same as upholding what you consider to be the proper interpretation of the constitution. Everyone probably disagrees with some decisions of the court.

There is not a goddamn thing in the Constitution that was upheld with regard to Obergefell. It was a lawless ruling made by an activist court. They established something that previously did not exist (gay marriage) and then they established a constitutional right to it that also did not previously exist. The case should have been dismissed for lack of standing. They had no jurisdiction in this, they certainly had no authority to create new laws and rights out of whole cloth, and they didn't have the authority to impose their personal sentiments on all of us with the power they are entrusted with. But that is what happened.

 

[Boss]

The court ruled that those same sex marriage bans were created in opposition to the protections afforded by the constitution, protections created based on the collective morality of society.

Total load of horse shit. Nothing in the constitution gives anyone the right to create something new and call it something else that already exists then claim they have a right to do it. If a bunch of people got together and decided to make "rape marriage" a thing and then proceed to lobby the court for their equal rights, we would not allow that. (I hope)

Again, the "collective morality of society" was expressly ignored by the court and their ruling. And there was not a discrimination or denying of any constitutional protections because homosexuals could obtain a 'marriage' license anywhere in the country and not even be questioned as to their sexuality. Much as the SCOTUS had to redefine Obamacare as a tax, they had to redefine marriage as gay marriage. Society didn't decide this. If society decided anything, it was the OPPOSITE of this.

What you are now trying to tell me is... We are a free society who collectively get to establish our morality into laws except when a liberal activist court decides we're not free to do this and our collective morality isn't important. Some other idiot above mentioned my respect for the "role of the court" and that's also bullshit... the role of the court is supposed to be upholding what the Constitution and rule of law says and not what they think is morally right and wrong.

Upholding the Constitution is what the Supreme Court did. A case came before them in which they found people were being denied their fundamental right to marry the person of their choice. Being they could find no compelling reason to deny them equal access to the laws, they ruled such bans on marriage to be unconstitutional. That is not activist and that is their function within the framework of the Constitution.

And get this ... the U.S. Supreme Court does NOT render decisions based on how butthurt it will leave you.

Houston transgender bathroom bill debate centers on differing definitions of 'men' - Washington Times

Houston is now trying to pass a "gender rights" bill that allows transgender men to use public restrooms intended for women. Proponents claim a fundamental right is being denied and they demand equal rights.

...people were being denied their fundamental right to marry the person of their choice.

How many hundreds of examples do you need of society denying marriage to "person of choice" as a matter of law? Pop has been raising the issue of sibling marriage for days... same thing... people being denied their "fundamental right" to marry the person of their choice.

 

[Pop23]

The basic misunderstand here is the way the USSC determines if a law is constitutional or not.

My opponents in this thread seem to want same sex marriage to be judged legal by use of the Strict Scrutiny test, which is the basis used when a Right is declared Constitutional, but......

When it comes to same sibling marriage the State only has to Judge its constitutionality using the rational basis test.

So here goes:

SSM proponents wanted the Strict Scrutiny test applied. The argument was that the State denied same sex the right to marry based on traditional values and their lack of the ability to procreate.

Their winning argument was for the strict application of the law. Since many opposite sex couples can not procreate or do not procreate, they are being denied licenses even though they were essentially the same as those couples.

Now they argue that somehow same sex siblings are remarkably different, but can't explain why.

Folks, if you WANT marriage judged on the rational basis test, I'm cool with that, but then the authority shifts to either a state vote or state legislators.

 

[Boss]

Now they argue that somehow same sex siblings are remarkably different, but can't explain why.

Oh but they DO explain why... they hypocritically run back to the 'rational basis' test which was just rejected by Obergefell! It's amazing! They don't bat an eye and they look at you like you've lost your mind to suggest such a thing as sibling marriage.

 

[Boss]

Now I have to determine if I'm wrong...

Pretty safe fucking bet you are wrong... you should always go with that.

 

[Pop23]

Now they argue that somehow same sex siblings are remarkably different, but can't explain why.

Oh but they DO explain why... they hypocritically run back to the 'rational basis' test which was just rejected by Obergefell! It's amazing! They don't bat an eye and they look at you like you've lost your mind to suggest such a thing as sibling marriage.

And they don't see the danger of their own argument.

If rational basis arguments are legitimate, the 14th amendment does not apply. Not just to same sex siblings, not just to same sex, homosexual or not, but to all.

 

[Faun]

Congrats. You finally got me to doubt myself..

Why, it was incredibly well done.

Kudos

Because you're an abject idiot who's wrong about virtually everything you post. If you agree with me, I have to reevaluate my own post. Now I have to determine if I'm wrong or if like a broken clock, you just happened to be right for once.

Back atcha

Of course, what else could you do but have others think for you?

You do realize the post I gave you Kudos for contains the same argument for legal same sex sibling marriage? Right?

You see, this is exactly why I say you're an abject idiot. There's no compelling reason to ban same-sex people from getting married. There are compelling reasons for why siblings can't get married regardless of their gender or sexuality. You've been shown this 100 times and you still don't get it. You never will. Why? Because you're an object idiot.

 

[Pop23]

Why, it was incredibly well done.

Kudos

Because you're an abject idiot who's wrong about virtually everything you post. If you agree with me, I have to reevaluate my own post. Now I have to determine if I'm wrong or if like a broken clock, you just happened to be right for once.

Back atcha

Of course, what else could you do but have others think for you?

You do realize the post I gave you Kudos for contains the same argument for legal same sex sibling marriage? Right?

You see, this is exactly why I say you're an abject idiot. There's no compelling reason to ban same-sex people from getting married. There are compelling reasons for why siblings can't get married regardless of their gender or sexuality. You've been shown this 100 times and you still don't get it. You never will. Why? Because you're an object idiot.

And I've demonstrated how all those that have been brought forth meet the rational basis test, not the strict scrutiny test.

If you would like we could discuss that further.

But I think you know better and will default back to the "because it's icky" defense.

 

[Idadunno]

Go back and rewrite that entire speech and replace the words homosexual and gay with African American and black. Then rewrite it again and replace African American with female and women. When idiots stopped writing speeches such as this, and stop trying to deny rights to others, then, and only then will "people" stop asking for and fighting for equality. Karma is a real bitch--it may be one of your kids one day that gets beat up for being gay. By the way, as a heterosexual female, I get damn sick and tired of heterosexual men trying to shove their penis in my mouth.

 

[Boss]

Go back and rewrite that entire speech and replace the words homosexual and gay with African American and black. Then rewrite it again and replace African American with female and women. When idiots stopped writing speeches such as this, and stop trying to deny rights to others, then, and only then will "people" stop asking for and fighting for equality. Karma is a real bitch--it may be one of your kids one day that gets beat up for being gay. By the way, as a heterosexual female, I get damn sick and tired of heterosexual men trying to shove their penis in my mouth.

And if you idiotically want to rationalize our rules of law on the basis of what can be substituted in and out of various speeches, we are in some more serious trouble. Karma IS a real bitch and many of you morons are going to understand that soon enough.

No one was being denied any damn thing here. Homosexuals could still be homosexuals. No requirement to disclose your sexuality in any state when obtaining a license of marriage. No same-gender marriage allowed to anyone because that is not marriage. The court literally changed what is defined as marriage and did so on the basis of accommodation. They have established marriage as a fundamental constitutional right, which as Pop is pointing out, now must be considered using the "strict scrutiny" test, which means... every adult pairing who wishes to obtain a marriage license must be allowed to do so, regardless of your moral objections.

Yep... Karma, she IS a bitch!

 

[Syriusly]

Upholding the Constitution is what the Supreme Court did. A case came before them in which they found people were being denied their fundamental right to marry the person of their choice. Being they could find no compelling reason to deny them equal access to the laws, they ruled such bans on marriage to be unconstitutional. That is not activist and that is their function within the framework of the Constitution.

And get this ... the U.S. Supreme Court does NOT render decisions based on how butthurt it will leave you.

\
That being said, the question is rather something that requires a license is a Constitutional right.

I know of no other such right that requires a State sanction.

That, in actuality is what should be debated.

go ahead and debate it.

We have a right to legally marry- and states have the right to regulate marriage- and states choose to use licenses to do that regulation.

We also have a right to legally own guns- and states also have the right to regulate gun use- hence concealed carry permits being required by some states.

But feel free to start your own thread to debate the concept of marriage licences.

If it is s constitutional right, the State had no right to regulate IT

Says you.

Quoting you.

Feel free to cite a Supreme Court ruling which says anything like that.

If you want a citation about the State's rights to regulate marriage, feel free to read the DOMA decision or Obergefel or Loving v. Virginia.

With strict scrutiny and/or due process.

Correct, which is my argument to begin with.

Says you.

Quoting you.

Feel free to cite a Supreme Court ruling which says anything like that.

If you want a citation about the State's rights to regulate marriage, feel free to read the DOMA decision or Obergefel or Loving v. Virginia

 

[Syriusly]

\
That being said, the question is rather something that requires a license is a Constitutional right.

I know of no other such right that requires a State sanction.

That, in actuality is what should be debated.

go ahead and debate it.

We have a right to legally marry- and states have the right to regulate marriage- and states choose to use licenses to do that regulation.

We also have a right to legally own guns- and states also have the right to regulate gun use- hence concealed carry permits being required by some states.

But feel free to start your own thread to debate the concept of marriage licences.

It is the right to bear arms that cannot be abridged, but hiding a gun requires permit.

But you fail to see the conflict in your marriage argument.

If it is s constitutional right, the State had no right to regulate IT or make one pay to attain it. It is a right of the individual, not the State.

Imagine if you had to pay to speak, then only speak as though the State required?

Actually it is more than just concealed carry. Some states require a license or permit to purchase a firearm, to own a handgun, some to own any firearm at all, from my reading.

Same legal issue though - we have rights- States can regulate rights- from issuing marriage licenses, to concealed carry permits, to permits for demonstrations, to requiring a permit to build a church.

Using the strict scrutiny test. Yes

So were you mistaken- or lying when you said that States have no right to regulate constitutional rights?

If it is s constitutional right, the State had no right to regulate IT

Oh heck- you were just trolling.

 

[Syriusly]

Go back and rewrite that entire speech and replace the words homosexual and gay with African American and black. Then rewrite it again and replace African American with female and women. When idiots stopped writing speeches such as this, and stop trying to deny rights to others, then, and only then will "people" stop asking for and fighting for equality. Karma is a real bitch--it may be one of your kids one day that gets beat up for being gay. By the way, as a heterosexual female, I get damn sick and tired of heterosexual men trying to shove their penis in my mouth.

No one was being denied any damn thing here.!

Speaking of arguing idiotically.

Court after court said yes- gay couples were being denied their right to marriage.

You are all butt hurt that the court says your argument is completely false.

 

[Syriusly]

Go back and rewrite that entire speech and replace the words homosexual and gay with African American and black. Then rewrite it again and replace African American with female and women. When idiots stopped writing speeches such as this, and stop trying to deny rights to others, then, and only then will "people" stop asking for and fighting for equality. Karma is a real bitch--it may be one of your kids one day that gets beat up for being gay. By the way, as a heterosexual female, I get damn sick and tired of heterosexual men trying to shove their penis in my mouth.

Yeah- I did the same thing by replacing 'homosexual' with 'Jew' and Boss blew a gasket about it.

But your point is correct- bigots are bigots- 50 years ago it was race- 100 years ago it was anti-semitism. Boss is just the current bigotry.

 

[Pop23]

go ahead and debate it.

We have a right to legally marry- and states have the right to regulate marriage- and states choose to use licenses to do that regulation.

We also have a right to legally own guns- and states also have the right to regulate gun use- hence concealed carry permits being required by some states.

But feel free to start your own thread to debate the concept of marriage licences.

It is the right to bear arms that cannot be abridged, but hiding a gun requires permit.

But you fail to see the conflict in your marriage argument.

If it is s constitutional right, the State had no right to regulate IT or make one pay to attain it. It is a right of the individual, not the State.

Imagine if you had to pay to speak, then only speak as though the State required?

Actually it is more than just concealed carry. Some states require a license or permit to purchase a firearm, to own a handgun, some to own any firearm at all, from my reading.

Same legal issue though - we have rights- States can regulate rights- from issuing marriage licenses, to concealed carry permits, to permits for demonstrations, to requiring a permit to build a church.

Using the strict scrutiny test. Yes

So were you mistaken- or lying when you said that States have no right to regulate constitutional rights?

If it is s constitutional right, the State had no right to regulate IT

Oh heck- you were just trolling.

They do have the right, under a test that you wish to ignore.

Sucks to be you I guess

 

[Pop23]

Go back and rewrite that entire speech and replace the words homosexual and gay with African American and black. Then rewrite it again and replace African American with female and women. When idiots stopped writing speeches such as this, and stop trying to deny rights to others, then, and only then will "people" stop asking for and fighting for equality. Karma is a real bitch--it may be one of your kids one day that gets beat up for being gay. By the way, as a heterosexual female, I get damn sick and tired of heterosexual men trying to shove their penis in my mouth.

No one was being denied any damn thing here.!

Speaking of arguing idiotically.

Court after court said yes- gay couples were being denied their right to marriage.

You are all butt hurt that the court says your argument is completely false.

Why do you want to keep fighting a war you won?

You one on a strict scrutiny of the constitution test.

Which is what you deny others.

 

[Syriusly]

It is the right to bear arms that cannot be abridged, but hiding a gun requires permit.

But you fail to see the conflict in your marriage argument.

If it is s constitutional right, the State had no right to regulate IT or make one pay to attain it. It is a right of the individual, not the State.

Imagine if you had to pay to speak, then only speak as though the State required?

Actually it is more than just concealed carry. Some states require a license or permit to purchase a firearm, to own a handgun, some to own any firearm at all, from my reading.

Same legal issue though - we have rights- States can regulate rights- from issuing marriage licenses, to concealed carry permits, to permits for demonstrations, to requiring a permit to build a church.

Using the strict scrutiny test. Yes

So were you mistaken- or lying when you said that States have no right to regulate constitutional rights?

If it is s constitutional right, the State had no right to regulate IT

Oh heck- you were just trolling.

They do have the right, under a test that you wish to ignore.

Sucks to be you I guess

Okay- so you were just lying when you said that States have no right to regulate constitutional rights

If it is s constitutional right, the State had no right to regulate IT

Oh heck- you were just trolling.

 

[Syriusly]

Go back and rewrite that entire speech and replace the words homosexual and gay with African American and black. Then rewrite it again and replace African American with female and women. When idiots stopped writing speeches such as this, and stop trying to deny rights to others, then, and only then will "people" stop asking for and fighting for equality. Karma is a real bitch--it may be one of your kids one day that gets beat up for being gay. By the way, as a heterosexual female, I get damn sick and tired of heterosexual men trying to shove their penis in my mouth.

No one was being denied any damn thing here.!

Speaking of arguing idiotically.

Court after court said yes- gay couples were being denied their right to marriage.

You are all butt hurt that the court says your argument is completely false.

Why do you want to keep fighting a war you won?

You one on a strict scrutiny of the constitution test.

Which is what you deny others.

What do I deny- to who?

Last I checked, I haven't denied anyone anything other than denying you the freedom of unopposed trolling.

 

[Montrovant]

Therefore, the SCOTUS can rule sibling-marriage into law, or any fucking thing else they want, and unless society can muster the needed majorities to ratify a new Constitutional amendment, we have to live with it. You can sit here and talk about all your moralistic reasons for denying different types of relationships... it all means bunk! You can insist that things are "obvious" and that we have laws against this or that... doesn't matter anymore... SCOTUS can rule and you'll need an amendment. Your moral views, even if they are shared by most of society, do not matter anymore.

It has always been the case that the USSC's rulings require an amendment (or future court ruling) to overturn. Obergefell did nothing to change that. Nor did Obergefell create a new law. It overturned laws the court deemed violated constitutional protection.

No, it's NOT what occurred. Bans on "gay marriage" did not violate the constitution any more than bans on "sibling marriage" or "rape marriage" or "animal marriage" or any number of other things that ARE NOT marriage. SCOTUS literally had to create something that did not exist then established a constitutional right to it. This is above and beyond any authority ever envisioned for the court. Society NEVER agreed to be governed by an oligarchy of people in black robes.

Are you sure you understand what 'literally' means? The court did not create something that did not exist. Same sex marriage existed before Obergefell. Marriage being ruled a fundamental right happened before Obergefell. The court is part of government; society absolutely agreed to that. The power and responsibility of the court to rule on the constitutionality of laws is long established, agreed to by society. Nor is the court suddenly some sort of dictatorial overlord.

It's NOT disagreement with their decision. It is disagreement that they should have even heard the case. The court is not there to change laws and right perceived injustices. They are charged with upholding the laws we have established without regard for their personal opinions. What they did here was to legislate a new law from the bench. That is not within their constitutional power... never has been.

It doesn't matter if I agree with their sentiments in principle or not... they aren't there to rule based on sentiment. We have a legislative branch which we elect to represent our sentiments and codify those into laws. The SCOTUS is there to uphold those laws... not rewrite them by creating new things and new rights that didn't previously exist. THAT is what I object to, not their intentions or sentiments.

The court is not simply there to uphold the laws, but also to overturn those it determines violates constitutional protections. You disagree that such protections were being violated. Now you are saying the court shouldn't hear cases because, what, ruling in a certain way might have a changing effect on society? If the parties have proper standing and the arguments presented are compelling enough to warrant it, of course the court will hear cases. Again, I see this as your disagreement with the ruling. Had the court ruled the other way and allowed same sex marriage bans to stand, I strongly doubt you would have complained that they shouldn't have heard the case.

A man had exactly the same right to obtain a marriage license with a woman and it has nothing to do with gender. It has to do with the definition of marriage. The Court's "feeling" is not supposed to be the basis of their rulings. The Court may, at a future date, have "feelings" for a brother wanting to marry his sister.... or a woman wanting to marry her rottweiler. Is it alright if they want to willy-nilly change that too, based on sentiments? What about age of consent laws? What if the Court "feels" that a 12-year old should have their constitutional right to legally consent?

To me... this is the difference between an activist court and a court functioning as it was intended, it has nothing to do with my agreement with their ruling. You think the SCOTUS can rule based on their "feelings and sentiments" and I think they should rule based on law and the constitution, and in complete disregard for personal sentiments.

All the times you've complained about minutae being brought up and you're going to complain about my use of the word feel? Fine, the court decided that a man being prevented from marrying another man based on his gender was denying equal access to law; a woman being prevented from marrying another woman based on her gender was denying equal access to law.

You keep bringing up things the court might do as though these things were not just as possible before Obergefell. How did the Obergefell ruling make it possible for the USSC to rule age of consent laws unconstitutional where they could not before the ruling?

There is not a goddamn thing in the Constitution that was upheld with regard to Obergefell. It was a lawless ruling made by an activist court. They established something that previously did not exist (gay marriage) and then they established a constitutional right to it that also did not previously exist. The case should have been dismissed for lack of standing. They had no jurisdiction in this, they certainly had no authority to create new laws and rights out of whole cloth, and they didn't have the authority to impose their personal sentiments on all of us with the power they are entrusted with. But that is what happened.

Once more : same sex marriage existed before Obergefell. No matter how many times you say the court created something completely new, it is untrue. Something like 30 states already had legal same sex marriage when the Obergefell ruling was made, not to mention various other nations also having legal SSM. Your continued descriptions of the court creating some previously nonexistent form of marriage or simply wrong.

The court had no jurisdiction in this? Dismissed based on lack of standing? Based on what, exactly? The parties involved certainly were the ones denied marriage, so they seem to me to have standing; it wasn't someone suing because someone else couldn't get married. The USSC is the highest court of the nation, the last court cases go to when there are questions of constitutionality. How then was this case outside the court's jurisdiction and why should it have been dismissed for lack of standing?

What new law has been created? Do you have the text of this law? I was under the impression the courts ruled that same sex couples must be given access to already existing marriage laws.

EDIT : Changed constitutional to fundamental regarding marriage as a right.

 

[Pop23]

Actually it is more than just concealed carry. Some states require a license or permit to purchase a firearm, to own a handgun, some to own any firearm at all, from my reading.

Same legal issue though - we have rights- States can regulate rights- from issuing marriage licenses, to concealed carry permits, to permits for demonstrations, to requiring a permit to build a church.

Using the strict scrutiny test. Yes

So were you mistaken- or lying when you said that States have no right to regulate constitutional rights?

If it is s constitutional right, the State had no right to regulate IT

Oh heck- you were just trolling.

They do have the right, under a test that you wish to ignore.

Sucks to be you I guess

Okay- so you were just lying when you said that States have no right to regulate constitutional rights

If it is s constitutional right, the State had no right to regulate IT

Oh heck- you were just trolling.

Your masters must love you