Let the States Decide- ALA Supreme Court Justice urges Defiance- Gay Marraige

[Skylar]

It would seem those hostile to the civil rights of gay Americans have abandoned their failed argument (and understandably so), to return to their failed argument hostile to the ACA.

What options do they have? Its not like their hostility toward gay rights has legs legally. Or logically. Or morally. Or ethically.

Nobody is hostile against people who want to have gay sex together. People advocating for children (who cannot vote) having access to both a mother and father in marriage for their best psychological welfare (Prince's Trust study; the largest of its kind) does not equal animus towards people being homosexual with each other

The Prince Trust Study doesn't say that. It never mentions any kind of parenting. It never mentions marriage. It mentions positive role models.

You assume that the only possible source for such a good role model is a parent. The Prince Trust Study never says that either.It never even mentions same sex parents. Let alone measures anything about them.

And of course, there are the dozen studies that that actually do measure the effects of same sex parenting, with the overwhelming consensus showing that their kids are just fine. And you ignore every such study, from any source, any country, any methodology, any sample size. For no particular reason.

So you have nothing that backs your claims. And overwhelming evidence contradicting you. Its clearly not the evidence driving you.

Knock yourselves out. Just don't call it marriage. Bulimics feel complusion to vomit after they eat. Their condition is intractable. Yet we don't call what they do "normal eating" ..and model that to successive generations of kids just to make bulimics feel better..

Obviously it is marriage. Barring a last minute USSC stay, its marriage in 37 of 50 States. Including Alabama....and Utah.

 

[kaz]

Where did ACA say it wasn't a tax. Explicitly.

Obama campaign It s a penalty not a tax - POLITICO.com

And Obama's campaign is the law?

You may want to read what you're replying to before posting irrelevancies like that. As the claim in question is that the law itself explicitly said it wasn't a tax.

I'm asking where in the law this is stated.

First of all, after the last post that's hilarious, you want me to "read what I'm replying to."

But as to your point, I know what you asked, you wanted an eight year old standard of defining the question narrowly to get the result you wanted. Obama stating what Obamacare is isn't an "irrelevancy." The hypocrisy of what you would say if a Republican tried your kiddie trick must make even your ass flame.

And again, your post has nothing to do with what is being discussed.

The claim is that the law itself explicitly said it was not a tax. Either address the claim, or your post is yet another red herring.

I directly addressed the claim. And again, if Republicans tried that, you'd be foaming at the mouth. Can you show what W legislation he said FEMA was responsible for handling Katrina? If you can't, you lose, it wasn't W's fault. He has to put in the legislation.

 

[Skylar]

It would seem those hostile to the civil rights of gay Americans have abandoned their failed argument (and understandably so), to return to their failed argument hostile to the ACA.

What options do they have? Its not like their hostility toward gay rights has legs legally. Or logically. Or morally. Or ethically.

Nobody is hostile against people who want to have gay sex together. People advocating for children (who cannot vote) having access to both a mother and father in marriage for their best psychological welfare (Prince's Trust study; the largest of its kind) does not equal animus towards people being homosexual with each other.

Knock yourselves out. Just don't call it marriage. Bulimics feel complusion to vomit after they eat. Their condition is intractable. Yet we don't call what they do "normal eating" ..and model that to successive generations of kids just to make bulimics feel better..

Your beloved and often cited Prince's Trust doesn't study or even mention gay parents. I have asked you on several occasions to show me exactly where the study mentions gay parents. It doesn't. And instead of owning up to the error you ignore and pretend that it does anyway. You can ignore the fact that your study doesn't mention/study gay parents but you cannot make the rest of us do the same.

It doesn't mention any kind of parenting. It doesn't mention marriage. It doesn't mention the source of good role models. That could be parents. Or siblings. Or friends. Or aunts and uncles. Or grandparents. Or clergy. Or coworkers. Or fellow students. Or teachers. Or mentors.

The Prince Trust Study never says, as it doesn't measure any of it. Yet Silo bizarrely concludes that the only possible source for positive role models is parents. And then just as bizarrely insists that because of this we should ban gay marriage. As if banning gay marriage would magically mean that all children of same sex couples have hetero parents.

The two have nothing to do with each other. His claims are just a disjointed mess from beginning to end.

 

[Skylar]

Where did ACA say it wasn't a tax. Explicitly.

Obama campaign It s a penalty not a tax - POLITICO.com

And Obama's campaign is the law?

You may want to read what you're replying to before posting irrelevancies like that. As the claim in question is that the law itself explicitly said it wasn't a tax.

I'm asking where in the law this is stated.

First of all, after the last post that's hilarious, you want me to "read what I'm replying to."

But as to your point, I know what you asked, you wanted an eight year old standard of defining the question narrowly to get the result you wanted. Obama stating what Obamacare is isn't an "irrelevancy." The hypocrisy of what you would say if a Republican tried your kiddie trick must make even your ass flame.

And again, your post has nothing to do with what is being discussed.

The claim is that the law itself explicitly said it was not a tax. Either address the claim, or your post is yet another red herring.

I directly addressed the claim. And again, if Republicans tried that, you'd be foaming at the mouth. Can you show what W legislation he said FEMA was responsible for handling Katrina? If you can't, you lose, it wasn't W's fault. He has to put in the legislation.

The claim was the law explicitly said the mandate was not a tax. Your red herring has nothing to do with that claim.

And is consequently irrelevant.

 

[kaz]

Refusing to live as you demand the law should be most certainly is hypocrisy...at least as you define it.

Strawman. I defined it as my partners feelings are more important to me than my opposition to gay marriage. I am following my values. Only an idiot would call that "hypocrisy" for me to follow my values. You know, an idiot, like you, the Dyke and Syriously Stupid...

And BTW, I advocate cheating on taxes, dimwit. How is it "hypocrisy" for me not to pay extra taxes. Here you go, simpleton. Note my vote was yes, cheating on and evading taxes is patriotic.

Is evading and cheating on your taxes patriotic US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Now you are actually a hypocrite, you advocate high taxes then evade them.

 

[Skylar]

Refusing to live as you demand the law should be most certainly is hypocrisy...at least as you define it.

Strawman. I defined it as my partners feelings are more important to me than my opposition to gay marriage.

And BTW, I advocate cheating on taxes, dimwit. How is it "hypocrisy" for me not to pay extra taxes. Here you go, simpleton. Note my vote was yes, cheating on and evading taxes is patriotic.

Is evading and cheating on your taxes patriotic US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Now you are actually a hypocrite, you advocate high taxes then evade them.

No, that's consistent application of your standards. You demand that married folks should get no tax breaks that singles don't get. Yet you receive tax benefits that singles don't get and enjoy them.

Demonstrating quite elegantly that you don't actually have a problem with the tax breaks themselves........if you're the one receiving them.

Hypocrite.

 

[kaz]

Obama campaign It s a penalty not a tax - POLITICO.com

And Obama's campaign is the law?

You may want to read what you're replying to before posting irrelevancies like that. As the claim in question is that the law itself explicitly said it wasn't a tax.

I'm asking where in the law this is stated.

First of all, after the last post that's hilarious, you want me to "read what I'm replying to."

But as to your point, I know what you asked, you wanted an eight year old standard of defining the question narrowly to get the result you wanted. Obama stating what Obamacare is isn't an "irrelevancy." The hypocrisy of what you would say if a Republican tried your kiddie trick must make even your ass flame.

And again, your post has nothing to do with what is being discussed.

The claim is that the law itself explicitly said it was not a tax. Either address the claim, or your post is yet another red herring.

I directly addressed the claim. And again, if Republicans tried that, you'd be foaming at the mouth. Can you show what W legislation he said FEMA was responsible for handling Katrina? If you can't, you lose, it wasn't W's fault. He has to put in the legislation.

The claim was the law explicitly said the mandate was not a tax. Your red herring has nothing to do with that claim.

And is consequently irrelevant.

So Obama saying what Obamacare is is "irrelevant." LOL, somewhere a village is missing its idiot...

 

[kaz]

Refusing to live as you demand the law should be most certainly is hypocrisy...at least as you define it.

Strawman. I defined it as my partners feelings are more important to me than my opposition to gay marriage.

And BTW, I advocate cheating on taxes, dimwit. How is it "hypocrisy" for me not to pay extra taxes. Here you go, simpleton. Note my vote was yes, cheating on and evading taxes is patriotic.

Is evading and cheating on your taxes patriotic US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Now you are actually a hypocrite, you advocate high taxes then evade them.

No, that's consistent application of your standards. You demand that married folks should get no tax breaks that singles don't get. Yet you receive tax benefits that singles don't get and enjoy them.

Demonstrating quite elegantly that you don't actually have a problem with the tax breaks themselves........if you're the one receiving them.

Hypocrite.

I advocate that my wife's feelings are more important than my political views.

I am a libertarian who supports small government and low taxes.

I advocate cheating on and evading taxes.

And I don't voluntarily pay more taxes, which makes me a "hypocrite." That actually sounds good to you? Seriously?

 

[mdk]

It would seem those hostile to the civil rights of gay Americans have abandoned their failed argument (and understandably so), to return to their failed argument hostile to the ACA.

What options do they have? Its not like their hostility toward gay rights has legs legally. Or logically. Or morally. Or ethically.

Nobody is hostile against people who want to have gay sex together. People advocating for children (who cannot vote) having access to both a mother and father in marriage for their best psychological welfare (Prince's Trust study; the largest of its kind) does not equal animus towards people being homosexual with each other.

Knock yourselves out. Just don't call it marriage. Bulimics feel complusion to vomit after they eat. Their condition is intractable. Yet we don't call what they do "normal eating" ..and model that to successive generations of kids just to make bulimics feel better..

Your beloved and often cited Prince's Trust doesn't study or even mention gay parents. I have asked you on several occasions to show me exactly where the study mentions gay parents. It doesn't. And instead of owning up to the error you ignore and pretend that it does anyway. You can ignore the fact that your study doesn't mention/study gay parents but you cannot make the rest of us do the same.

I suspect both of our posts will ignored by Sil.

It doesn't mention any kind of parenting. It doesn't mention marriage. It doesn't mention the source of good role models. That could be parents. Or siblings. Or friends. Or aunts and uncles. Or grandparents. Or clergy. Or coworkers. Or fellow students. Or teachers. Or mentors.

The Prince Trust Study never says, as it doesn't measure any of it. Yet Silo bizarrely concludes that the only possible source for positive role models is parents. And then just as bizarrely insists that because of this we should ban gay marriage. As if banning gay marriage would magically mean that all children of same sex couples have hetero parents.

The two have nothing to do with each other. His claims are just a disjointed mess from beginning to end.

All that matters to Sil is the narrative.

 

[kaz]

No, that's consistent application of your standards. You demand that married folks should get no tax breaks that singles don't get. Yet you receive tax benefits that singles don't get and enjoy them.

Strawman, I advocate singles get the tax breaks married people get. Not the same thing.

Demonstrating quite elegantly that you don't actually have a problem with the tax breaks themselves........if you're the one receiving them.

Hypocrite.

Idiot

 

[Skylar]

And Obama's campaign is the law?

You may want to read what you're replying to before posting irrelevancies like that. As the claim in question is that the law itself explicitly said it wasn't a tax.

I'm asking where in the law this is stated.

First of all, after the last post that's hilarious, you want me to "read what I'm replying to."

But as to your point, I know what you asked, you wanted an eight year old standard of defining the question narrowly to get the result you wanted. Obama stating what Obamacare is isn't an "irrelevancy." The hypocrisy of what you would say if a Republican tried your kiddie trick must make even your ass flame.

And again, your post has nothing to do with what is being discussed.

The claim is that the law itself explicitly said it was not a tax. Either address the claim, or your post is yet another red herring.

I directly addressed the claim. And again, if Republicans tried that, you'd be foaming at the mouth. Can you show what W legislation he said FEMA was responsible for handling Katrina? If you can't, you lose, it wasn't W's fault. He has to put in the legislation.

The claim was the law explicitly said the mandate was not a tax. Your red herring has nothing to do with that claim.

And is consequently irrelevant.

So Obama saying what Obamacare is is "irrelevant." LOL, somewhere a village is missing its idiot...

Red herring. Obama speaking about Obamacare is not the 'law'. This was the claim: the law explicitly said the mandate was not a tax.

That's three strikes. You're clearly have no interest in discussing the topic.

 

[kaz]

First of all, after the last post that's hilarious, you want me to "read what I'm replying to."

But as to your point, I know what you asked, you wanted an eight year old standard of defining the question narrowly to get the result you wanted. Obama stating what Obamacare is isn't an "irrelevancy." The hypocrisy of what you would say if a Republican tried your kiddie trick must make even your ass flame.

And again, your post has nothing to do with what is being discussed.

The claim is that the law itself explicitly said it was not a tax. Either address the claim, or your post is yet another red herring.

I directly addressed the claim. And again, if Republicans tried that, you'd be foaming at the mouth. Can you show what W legislation he said FEMA was responsible for handling Katrina? If you can't, you lose, it wasn't W's fault. He has to put in the legislation.

The claim was the law explicitly said the mandate was not a tax. Your red herring has nothing to do with that claim.

And is consequently irrelevant.

So Obama saying what Obamacare is is "irrelevant." LOL, somewhere a village is missing its idiot...

Red herring. Obama speaking about Obamacare is not the 'law'. This was the claim: the law explicitly said the mandate was not a tax.

That's three strikes. You're clearly have no interest in discussing the topic.

I'm waiting for you to show me the legislation W had passed that said FEMA was responsible for Katrina. You finding that yet?

 

[Skylar]

No, that's consistent application of your standards. You demand that married folks should get no tax breaks that singles don't get. Yet you receive tax benefits that singles don't get and enjoy them.

Strawman, I advocate singles get the tax breaks married people get. Not the same thing.

Demonstrating quite elegantly that you don't actually have a problem with the tax breaks themselves........if you're the one receiving them.

Hypocrite.

Idiot

Its your logic, applied consistently. You enjoy the very tax breaks you insist you should never have. If you actually believed your own bullshit, you'd pay the same rate as a single person.

You treat your own claims like the garbage they are. You'll understand when we treat your claims the same way, hypocrite.

 

[Skylar]

And again, your post has nothing to do with what is being discussed.

The claim is that the law itself explicitly said it was not a tax. Either address the claim, or your post is yet another red herring.

I directly addressed the claim. And again, if Republicans tried that, you'd be foaming at the mouth. Can you show what W legislation he said FEMA was responsible for handling Katrina? If you can't, you lose, it wasn't W's fault. He has to put in the legislation.

The claim was the law explicitly said the mandate was not a tax. Your red herring has nothing to do with that claim.

And is consequently irrelevant.

So Obama saying what Obamacare is is "irrelevant." LOL, somewhere a village is missing its idiot...

Red herring. Obama speaking about Obamacare is not the 'law'. This was the claim: the law explicitly said the mandate was not a tax.

That's three strikes. You're clearly have no interest in discussing the topic.

I'm waiting for you to show me the legislation W had passed that said FEMA was responsible for Katrina. You finding that yet?

Red herring.

 

[Skylar]

It would seem those hostile to the civil rights of gay Americans have abandoned their failed argument (and understandably so), to return to their failed argument hostile to the ACA.

What options do they have? Its not like their hostility toward gay rights has legs legally. Or logically. Or morally. Or ethically.

Nobody is hostile against people who want to have gay sex together. People advocating for children (who cannot vote) having access to both a mother and father in marriage for their best psychological welfare (Prince's Trust study; the largest of its kind) does not equal animus towards people being homosexual with each other.

Knock yourselves out. Just don't call it marriage. Bulimics feel complusion to vomit after they eat. Their condition is intractable. Yet we don't call what they do "normal eating" ..and model that to successive generations of kids just to make bulimics feel better..

Your beloved and often cited Prince's Trust doesn't study or even mention gay parents. I have asked you on several occasions to show me exactly where the study mentions gay parents. It doesn't. And instead of owning up to the error you ignore and pretend that it does anyway. You can ignore the fact that your study doesn't mention/study gay parents but you cannot make the rest of us do the same.

I suspect both of our posts will ignored by Sil.

It doesn't mention any kind of parenting. It doesn't mention marriage. It doesn't mention the source of good role models. That could be parents. Or siblings. Or friends. Or aunts and uncles. Or grandparents. Or clergy. Or coworkers. Or fellow students. Or teachers. Or mentors.

The Prince Trust Study never says, as it doesn't measure any of it. Yet Silo bizarrely concludes that the only possible source for positive role models is parents. And then just as bizarrely insists that because of this we should ban gay marriage. As if banning gay marriage would magically mean that all children of same sex couples have hetero parents.

The two have nothing to do with each other. His claims are just a disjointed mess from beginning to end.

All that matters to Sil is the narrative.

Honestly, I think he's building his own mythology preemptively.

I strongly suspect Sil knows what's coming. So he's preparing his basis of outrage ahead of time. The 'Prince Trust Study'....which doesn't say anything he claims it does. The '56 citations in the Windsor decision'....when the Windsor decision never even mentions gay marriage bans. Let alone rules on them.

And his straight up desperate, willful ignorance of any study that contradicts him, any mention of constitutional guarantees in the Windsor decision, or any mention in the Windsor decision of the harm caused children by the denial of gay marriage.

What we're seeing is a blue print for how he plans on lying to himself come June.

 

[mdk]

What options do they have? Its not like their hostility toward gay rights has legs legally. Or logically. Or morally. Or ethically.

Nobody is hostile against people who want to have gay sex together. People advocating for children (who cannot vote) having access to both a mother and father in marriage for their best psychological welfare (Prince's Trust study; the largest of its kind) does not equal animus towards people being homosexual with each other.

Knock yourselves out. Just don't call it marriage. Bulimics feel complusion to vomit after they eat. Their condition is intractable. Yet we don't call what they do "normal eating" ..and model that to successive generations of kids just to make bulimics feel better..

Your beloved and often cited Prince's Trust doesn't study or even mention gay parents. I have asked you on several occasions to show me exactly where the study mentions gay parents. It doesn't. And instead of owning up to the error you ignore and pretend that it does anyway. You can ignore the fact that your study doesn't mention/study gay parents but you cannot make the rest of us do the same.

I suspect both of our posts will ignored by Sil.

It doesn't mention any kind of parenting. It doesn't mention marriage. It doesn't mention the source of good role models. That could be parents. Or siblings. Or friends. Or aunts and uncles. Or grandparents. Or clergy. Or coworkers. Or fellow students. Or teachers. Or mentors.

The Prince Trust Study never says, as it doesn't measure any of it. Yet Silo bizarrely concludes that the only possible source for positive role models is parents. And then just as bizarrely insists that because of this we should ban gay marriage. As if banning gay marriage would magically mean that all children of same sex couples have hetero parents.

The two have nothing to do with each other. His claims are just a disjointed mess from beginning to end.

All that matters to Sil is the narrative.

Honestly, I think he's building his own mythology preemptively.

I strongly suspect Sil knows what's coming. So he's preparing his basis of outrage ahead of time. The 'Prince Trust Study'....which doesn't say anything he claims it does. The '56 citations in the Windsor decision'....when the Windsor decision never even mentions gay marriage bans. Let alone rules on them.

And his straight up desperate, willful ignorance of any study that contradicts him, any mention of constitutional guarantees in the Windsor decision, or any mention in the Windsor decision of the harm caused children by the denial of gay marriage.

What we're seeing is a blue print for how he plans on lying to himself come June.

I can't wait b/c it should be very entertaining.

 

[kaz]

I directly addressed the claim. And again, if Republicans tried that, you'd be foaming at the mouth. Can you show what W legislation he said FEMA was responsible for handling Katrina? If you can't, you lose, it wasn't W's fault. He has to put in the legislation.

The claim was the law explicitly said the mandate was not a tax. Your red herring has nothing to do with that claim.

And is consequently irrelevant.

So Obama saying what Obamacare is is "irrelevant." LOL, somewhere a village is missing its idiot...

Red herring. Obama speaking about Obamacare is not the 'law'. This was the claim: the law explicitly said the mandate was not a tax.

That's three strikes. You're clearly have no interest in discussing the topic.

I'm waiting for you to show me the legislation W had passed that said FEMA was responsible for Katrina. You finding that yet?

Red herring.

Its your logic, applied consistently. Obama is not accountable for what he says his legislation is unless it's in the legislation.

You treat your own claims like the garbage they are. You'll understand when "I" treat your claims the same way, hypocrite.

And yes, you speak for hordes of people, hundreds, thousands. They hang on your every word saying yes, Skylar speaks for me. I guess you're not woody, you're limpy. "I" is a far more powerful word than "we" because I'm man enough to believe I am man enough to have a view, you need the validation of others to even think what you think.

 

[kaz]

If you actually believed your own bullshit, you'd pay the same rate as a single person.

My own bullshit that people should cheat on and evade their taxes? I should pay more taxes or I am a hypocrite?

This word, "hypocrite," I do not think it means what you think it means. You know, dumb ass, you don't even have to own a dictionary anymore, you're on ... the Internet ...

 

[Skylar]

The claim was the law explicitly said the mandate was not a tax. Your red herring has nothing to do with that claim.

And is consequently irrelevant.

So Obama saying what Obamacare is is "irrelevant." LOL, somewhere a village is missing its idiot...

Red herring. Obama speaking about Obamacare is not the 'law'. This was the claim: the law explicitly said the mandate was not a tax.

That's three strikes. You're clearly have no interest in discussing the topic.

I'm waiting for you to show me the legislation W had passed that said FEMA was responsible for Katrina. You finding that yet?

Red herring.

Its your logic, applied consistently. Obama is not accountable for what he says his legislation is unless it's in the legislation.

You treat your own claims like the garbage they are. You'll understand when "I" treat your claims the same way, hypocrite.

And yes, you speak for hordes of people, hundreds, thousands. They hang on your every word saying yes, Skylar speaks for me. I guess you're not woody, you're limpy. "I" is a far more powerful word than "we" because I'm man enough to believe I am man enough to have a view, you need the validation of others to even think what you think.

Red herring. This is the claim: the law explicitly said the mandate was not a tax.

Either you'll address the claim or you won't.

 

[Skylar]

If you actually believed your own bullshit, you'd pay the same rate as a single person.

My own bullshit that people should cheat on and evade their taxes? I should pay more taxes or I am a hypocrite?

This word, "hypocrite," I do not think it means what you think it means. You know, dumb ass, you don't even have to own a dictionary anymore, you're on ... the Internet ...

Your own bullshit....that married people should pay the same rate as single people. If you actually believed it, you'd do it.

You don't, hypocrite. You enjoy the very benefits you insist no one should ever have.