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

[Syriusly]

Yet you keep arguing against same gender marriages at the same time you enjoy the same rights, priveleges and benefits' you and your wife enjoy.

Actually, retard, I keep telling you I want to give everyone who doesn't have those to get them. You only want to add people who have sex with their own gender. You are clearly the discriminator.

By enjoying those benefits and arguing that homosexuals should not have the same rights as you and your wife enjoy.

They do have the same rights. Marriage laws have never discriminated against them. Ever.

In the same way that marriage laws never discriminated against mixed race couples.

Argument 1
You guys are so predictable.

Lack of any argument.

you guys are always the same.

 

[Syriusly]

Actually, retard, I keep telling you I want to give everyone who doesn't have those to get them. You only want to add people who have sex with their own gender. You are clearly the discriminator.

By enjoying those benefits and arguing that homosexuals should not have the same rights as you and your wife enjoy.

They do have the same rights. Marriage laws have never discriminated against them. Ever.

In the same way that marriage laws never discriminated against mixed race couples.

Argument 1
You guys are so predictable.

They argue in tiny little ignorant circles.

you argue in tiny little circle jerks with your fellow bigots.

 

[kaz]

I didn't repeat what I said, I explained the obvious to you.

You don't grasp that when they argue:

1) They are in favor of having government marriage

2) They are opposed to extending those tax breaks, privileges to straights

3) They want to add gay couples to government marriage

That means they want to extend marriage to gays and then freeze it.

I can speak only form myself of course:

1) They are in favor of having government marriage

I'm in favor of equal treatment of citizens by the government barring a compelling government interest which warrants otherwise. If government is going to have Civil Marriage contracts, there is no reason to bar same-sex couples. I'm fine with the government dissolving all laws pertaining to Civil Marriage, but the reality is that there are purposes and functions that exist as part of Civil Marriage and they would just be replaced with more expensive alternatives.​

2) They are opposed to extending those tax breaks, privileges to straights

Straights can already get married and therefore obtain those "tax breaks" and privileges and - as long as Civil Marriage contracts exist - have no desire to deny them to myself and other straights.​

3) They want to add gay couples to government marriage

False. Allowing same-sex couples to enter into Civil Marriage contracts makes them part of the "government". What is true is that I think same-sex couples should be treated equally by the government as different sex couples.​

That means they want to extend marriage to gays and then freeze it.

You were wrong on #1. You were wrong on #2. Your literal words on #3 were wrong, but if I assume what you meant is what I corrected - then #3 is correct.

I have no opposition, from a legal stand point, for Civil Marriage not to be "frozen" after same-sex couples achieve Marriage Equality. I recognize though that it will up to those proponents to make their case for further changes, if needed, and for opponents to present their case in opposition. That while there is no compelling government reason for discriminating against same-sex couples there may be different reasons applicable to other situations.​

Instead of incorrectly stating my position in the future, please ask instead.


>>>>

All the word parsing and you didn't contradict anything I said.

Actually I contradicted just everything you said about my position on the matter.


>>>>>

A distinction without a difference.

You said what I did, you would give government marriage to gays, you would not change anything else. Take the agenda of trying to disagree with me and tell me where that is wrong, because you sure didn't the first time.

 

[Skylar]

Yet you keep arguing against same gender marriages at the same time you enjoy the same rights, priveleges and benefits' you and your wife enjoy.

Actually, retard, I keep telling you I want to give everyone who doesn't have those to get them. You only want to add people who have sex with their own gender. You are clearly the discriminator.

By enjoying those benefits and arguing that homosexuals should not have the same rights as you and your wife enjoy.

They do have the same rights. Marriage laws have never discriminated against them. Ever.

In the same way that marriage laws never discriminated against mixed race couples.

Argument 1
You guys are so predictable.

Laughing.....really? The USSC cited 4 race based cases between Windsor and Romer when describing why the rights of gays can't be violated. And still you're going to ignore any race based case.

Wow. Its not like your willful ignorance is going to force the USSC to ignore itself.

 

[kaz]

You didn't say "singles", you said "straights". I replied to what you said, which it is my belief that different-sex couples and same-sex couples should be treated equally under the law.

OK, fair enough, but that was a typo, not a change in position. I don't need to look it up, I believe you. Frankly I've said it so many times to you I have a hard time believing you didn't realize that.

 

[Skylar]

I didn't repeat what I said, I explained the obvious to you.

You don't grasp that when they argue:

1) They are in favor of having government marriage

2) They are opposed to extending those tax breaks, privileges to straights

3) They want to add gay couples to government marriage

That means they want to extend marriage to gays and then freeze it.

I can speak only form myself of course:

1) They are in favor of having government marriage

I'm in favor of equal treatment of citizens by the government barring a compelling government interest which warrants otherwise. If government is going to have Civil Marriage contracts, there is no reason to bar same-sex couples. I'm fine with the government dissolving all laws pertaining to Civil Marriage, but the reality is that there are purposes and functions that exist as part of Civil Marriage and they would just be replaced with more expensive alternatives.​

2) They are opposed to extending those tax breaks, privileges to straights

Straights can already get married and therefore obtain those "tax breaks" and privileges and - as long as Civil Marriage contracts exist - have no desire to deny them to myself and other straights.​

3) They want to add gay couples to government marriage

False. Allowing same-sex couples to enter into Civil Marriage contracts makes them part of the "government". What is true is that I think same-sex couples should be treated equally by the government as different sex couples.​

That means they want to extend marriage to gays and then freeze it.

You were wrong on #1. You were wrong on #2. Your literal words on #3 were wrong, but if I assume what you meant is what I corrected - then #3 is correct.

I have no opposition, from a legal stand point, for Civil Marriage not to be "frozen" after same-sex couples achieve Marriage Equality. I recognize though that it will up to those proponents to make their case for further changes, if needed, and for opponents to present their case in opposition. That while there is no compelling government reason for discriminating against same-sex couples there may be different reasons applicable to other situations.​

Instead of incorrectly stating my position in the future, please ask instead.


>>>>

All the word parsing and you didn't contradict anything I said.

Actually I contradicted just everything you said about my position on the matter.


>>>>>

A distinction without a difference.

You said what I did, you would give government marriage to gays, you would not change anything else. Take the agenda of trying to disagree with me and tell me where that is wrong, because you sure didn't the first time.

A distinction with a major difference: no one is arguing that the marriages of straights shouldn't be recognized. Negating your floundering 'freezing' argument.

 

[kaz]

Yet you keep arguing against same gender marriages at the same time you enjoy the same rights, priveleges and benefits' you and your wife enjoy.

Actually, retard, I keep telling you I want to give everyone who doesn't have those to get them. You only want to add people who have sex with their own gender. You are clearly the discriminator.

By enjoying those benefits and arguing that homosexuals should not have the same rights as you and your wife enjoy.

Again dim wit, I think gays should get those rights, I think everyone should. How stupid are you? There seems to be no limit.

 

[kaz]

Yet you keep arguing against same gender marriages at the same time you enjoy the same rights, priveleges and benefits' you and your wife enjoy.

Actually, retard, I keep telling you I want to give everyone who doesn't have those to get them. You only want to add people who have sex with their own gender. You are clearly the discriminator.

By enjoying those benefits and arguing that homosexuals should not have the same rights as you and your wife enjoy.

They do have the same rights. Marriage laws have never discriminated against them. Ever.

In the same way that marriage laws never discriminated against mixed race couples.

False analogy

 

[kaz]

Yet you keep arguing against same gender marriages at the same time you enjoy the same rights, priveleges and benefits' you and your wife enjoy.

Actually, retard, I keep telling you I want to give everyone who doesn't have those to get them. You only want to add people who have sex with their own gender. You are clearly the discriminator.

By enjoying those benefits and arguing that homosexuals should not have the same rights as you and your wife enjoy.

They do have the same rights. Marriage laws have never discriminated against them. Ever.

In the same way that marriage laws never discriminated against mixed race couples.

Argument 1
You guys are so predictable.

Not so. He may come back with argument #2, or he may repeat argument #1. Who knows? I don't...

 

[kaz]

Actually, retard, I keep telling you I want to give everyone who doesn't have those to get them. You only want to add people who have sex with their own gender. You are clearly the discriminator.

By enjoying those benefits and arguing that homosexuals should not have the same rights as you and your wife enjoy.

They do have the same rights. Marriage laws have never discriminated against them. Ever.

In the same way that marriage laws never discriminated against mixed race couples.

Argument 1
You guys are so predictable.

Laughing.....really? The USSC cited 4 race based cases between Windsor and Romer when describing why the rights of gays can't be violated. And still you're going to ignore any race based case.

Wow. Its not like your willful ignorance is going to force the USSC to ignore itself.

False analogy. Being black changed who you could marry. Being gay doesn't. And despite your strawman, my argument is that you should do it the right way, the legislature, not dictators in judges.

As Rabbi keeps pointing out as well, comparing what happens to gays with what happened to blacks is pathetic

 

[kaz]

A distinction without a difference.

You said what I did, you would give government marriage to gays, you would not change anything else. Take the agenda of trying to disagree with me and tell me where that is wrong, because you sure didn't the first time.

A distinction with a major difference: no one is arguing that the marriages of straights shouldn't be recognized. Negating your floundering 'freezing' argument.

Made no sense...

 

[Seawytch]

Actually, retard, I keep telling you I want to give everyone who doesn't have those to get them. You only want to add people who have sex with their own gender. You are clearly the discriminator.

By enjoying those benefits and arguing that homosexuals should not have the same rights as you and your wife enjoy.

They do have the same rights. Marriage laws have never discriminated against them. Ever.

In the same way that marriage laws never discriminated against mixed race couples.

Argument 1
You guys are so predictable.

They argue in tiny little ignorant circles.

Kinda like how you discriminate in ignorant little circles. BTW...guess which argument is winning?

 

[Skylar]

A distinction without a difference.

You said what I did, you would give government marriage to gays, you would not change anything else. Take the agenda of trying to disagree with me and tell me where that is wrong, because you sure didn't the first time.

A distinction with a major difference: no one is arguing that the marriages of straights shouldn't be recognized. Negating your floundering 'freezing' argument.

Made no sense...

No one has argued for 'freezing' marriage. Frankly I've stated that so clearly to you I have a hard time believing you didn't realize that.

Straights, singles, gays, can all join.

The only one babbling about marriage being 'frozen'....is you citing yourself. And you're clueless.

 

[Skylar]

By enjoying those benefits and arguing that homosexuals should not have the same rights as you and your wife enjoy.

They do have the same rights. Marriage laws have never discriminated against them. Ever.

In the same way that marriage laws never discriminated against mixed race couples.

Argument 1
You guys are so predictable.

They argue in tiny little ignorant circles.

Kinda like how you discriminate in ignorant little circles. BTW...guess which argument is winning?

They never do understand that their willful ignorance doesn't actually change the outcome of any case.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

By enjoying those benefits and arguing that homosexuals should not have the same rights as you and your wife enjoy.

They do have the same rights. Marriage laws have never discriminated against them. Ever.

In the same way that marriage laws never discriminated against mixed race couples.

Argument 1
You guys are so predictable.

They argue in tiny little ignorant circles.

Kinda like how you discriminate in ignorant little circles. BTW...guess which argument is winning?

Mine. You Leftists can't cause your agenda to pass through the Democratic process, that is, prevailing upon your fellow citizens to agree with you, so you instead push it through the courts, finding black robed tyrants to decide in your favor. You mistakingly believe that's the same as actually persuading people. It isn't.

 

[Skylar]

They do have the same rights. Marriage laws have never discriminated against them. Ever.

In the same way that marriage laws never discriminated against mixed race couples.

Argument 1
You guys are so predictable.

They argue in tiny little ignorant circles.

Kinda like how you discriminate in ignorant little circles. BTW...guess which argument is winning?

Mine. You Leftists can't cause your agenda to pass through the Democratic process, that is, prevailing upon your fellow citizens to agree with you, so you instead push it through the courts, finding black robed tyrants to decide in your favor. You mistakingly believe that's the same as actually persuading people. It isn't.

You've lost in the court of public opinion. As the majority supports gay marriage.....with support outpacing opposition by 12 to 19 points.

You've lost in the court of law, with virtually every federal court ruling to adjudicate the topic overturning gay marriage bans. And the USSC preserving every ruling that overturned such bans. So much so that gay marriage is now legal in 37 of 50 States.

If that's your side 'winning', then I guess we both hope to see much more of it!

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

In the same way that marriage laws never discriminated against mixed race couples.

Argument 1
You guys are so predictable.

They argue in tiny little ignorant circles.

Kinda like how you discriminate in ignorant little circles. BTW...guess which argument is winning?

Mine. You Leftists can't cause your agenda to pass through the Democratic process, that is, prevailing upon your fellow citizens to agree with you, so you instead push it through the courts, finding black robed tyrants to decide in your favor. You mistakingly believe that's the same as actually persuading people. It isn't.

You've lost in the court of public opinion. As the majority supports gay marriage.....with support outpacing opposition by 12 to 19 points.

You've lost in the court of law, with virtually every federal court ruling to adjudicate the topic overturning gay marriage bans. And the USSC preserving every ruling that overturned such bans. So much so that gay marriage is now legal in 37 of 50 States.

If that's your side 'winning', then I guess we both hope to see much more of it!

Funny how your polls didn't translate into winning legislation. You can pretend that people support fag marriage, but when given the chance to pass a law on it, they soundly rejected perversion and defined marriage as one man and one woman. So no, you don't actually have the support of the American people where it counts.

 

[Skylar]

Argument 1
You guys are so predictable.

They argue in tiny little ignorant circles.

Kinda like how you discriminate in ignorant little circles. BTW...guess which argument is winning?

Mine. You Leftists can't cause your agenda to pass through the Democratic process, that is, prevailing upon your fellow citizens to agree with you, so you instead push it through the courts, finding black robed tyrants to decide in your favor. You mistakingly believe that's the same as actually persuading people. It isn't.

You've lost in the court of public opinion. As the majority supports gay marriage.....with support outpacing opposition by 12 to 19 points.

You've lost in the court of law, with virtually every federal court ruling to adjudicate the topic overturning gay marriage bans. And the USSC preserving every ruling that overturned such bans. So much so that gay marriage is now legal in 37 of 50 States.

If that's your side 'winning', then I guess we both hope to see much more of it!

Funny how your polls didn't translate into winning legislation. You can pretend that people support fag marriage, but when given the chance to pass a law on it, they soundly rejected perversion and defined marriage as one man and one woman. So no, you don't actually have the support of the American people where it counts.

The polls followed the legislation. With the turnaround for sentiment on gay marriage coming in around 2011. While virtually all laws and amendments excluding gays from marriage came before that, most in the mid 2000s. Since 2011 we've seen a dramatic surge in support for gay marriage. With support now at an all time high of 55%. With only 42% opposing.

And since this surge in public support, every vote for gay marriage has been yes. With Maine, Maryland and Washington all voting to recognize it by popular vote.

You can pretend that shift in public opinion never happened. Just like you can pretend that the courts haven't overturned gay marriage bans. But your denial doesn't change either fact.

 

[kaz]

A distinction without a difference.

You said what I did, you would give government marriage to gays, you would not change anything else. Take the agenda of trying to disagree with me and tell me where that is wrong, because you sure didn't the first time.

A distinction with a major difference: no one is arguing that the marriages of straights shouldn't be recognized. Negating your floundering 'freezing' argument.

Made no sense...

No one has argued for 'freezing' marriage. Frankly I've stated that so clearly to you I have a hard time believing you didn't realize that.

Straights, singles, gays, can all join.

The only one babbling about marriage being 'frozen'....is you citing yourself. And you're clueless.

So word games aside, do you think gay couples should be able to get a government marriage and single people should not be able to get the tax breaks, perks and benefits that married couples get?

Answer the question and stop dancing. For all the feathers flying, you have yet to actually contradict anything I said.

 

[Skylar]

A distinction without a difference.

You said what I did, you would give government marriage to gays, you would not change anything else. Take the agenda of trying to disagree with me and tell me where that is wrong, because you sure didn't the first time.

A distinction with a major difference: no one is arguing that the marriages of straights shouldn't be recognized. Negating your floundering 'freezing' argument.

Made no sense...

No one has argued for 'freezing' marriage. Frankly I've stated that so clearly to you I have a hard time believing you didn't realize that.

Straights, singles, gays, can all join.

The only one babbling about marriage being 'frozen'....is you citing yourself. And you're clueless.

So word games aside, do you think gay couples should be able to get a government marriage and single people should not be able to get the tax breaks, perks and benefits that married couples get?

Answer the question and stop dancing. For all the feathers flying, you have yet to actually contradict anything I said.

Word games? You're being intentionally obtuse because you know that no one has ever argued that marriage should be 'frozen'. You made all that up.

My position is explicit and consistent: straight, single or gay, they should all be allowed to be married.

Feel free to ever quote me saying otherwise.....outside your imagination, of course.