Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[Seawytch]

See, there, you doing it now. lol

You lost the argument when you couldn't cite a single state that had a child producing requirement in its marriage laws.

That question had nothing to do with my argument.

It was a ... wait for it ... non-sequitur ...

That was the theme of your thread. Look at the title:

Why should taxpayers subsidize gay mating?

Answer: because the taxpayers subsidize non-gay mating, and gays are entitled to equal treatment under the law.

Case closed.

Yes, everything is as it seems on the surface, isn't it, Scoobie?

Make the case that gays do not deserve equal treatment under the law.

Non-sequitur, they have equal treatment under the law, that makes no sense

Tell us how this is equal treatment.

Couple A and B both get married in the state of Massachusetts. They have the exact same marriage license issued by the state but only Couple A's marriage license is recognized in all 50 states. Couple B's is only recognized in a little over half the states.

How is that equal?

 

[kaz]

That question had nothing to do with my argument.

It was a ... wait for it ... non-sequitur ...

That was the theme of your thread. Look at the title:

Why should taxpayers subsidize gay mating?

Answer: because the taxpayers subsidize non-gay mating, and gays are entitled to equal treatment under the law.

Case closed.

Yes, everything is as it seems on the surface, isn't it, Scoobie?

Make the case that gays do not deserve equal treatment under the law.

Non-sequitur, they have equal treatment under the law, that makes no sense

Tell us how this is equal treatment.

Couple A and B both get married in the state of Massachusetts. They have the exact same marriage license issued by the state but only Couple A's marriage license is recognized in all 50 states. Couple B's is only recognized in a little over half the states.

How is that equal?

It's not, but the Full Faith and Credit clause makes it not a Constitutional issue

 

[Seawytch]

That was the theme of your thread. Look at the title:

Why should taxpayers subsidize gay mating?

Answer: because the taxpayers subsidize non-gay mating, and gays are entitled to equal treatment under the law.

Case closed.

Yes, everything is as it seems on the surface, isn't it, Scoobie?

Make the case that gays do not deserve equal treatment under the law.

Non-sequitur, they have equal treatment under the law, that makes no sense

Tell us how this is equal treatment.

Couple A and B both get married in the state of Massachusetts. They have the exact same marriage license issued by the state but only Couple A's marriage license is recognized in all 50 states. Couple B's is only recognized in a little over half the states.

How is that equal?

It's not, but the Full Faith and Credit clause makes it not a Constitutional issue

Equal treatment under the law. You said gays have equal treatment under the law and then admitted they don't. Violation of the 14th Amendment.

 

[kaz]

Yes, everything is as it seems on the surface, isn't it, Scoobie?

Make the case that gays do not deserve equal treatment under the law.

Non-sequitur, they have equal treatment under the law, that makes no sense

Tell us how this is equal treatment.

Couple A and B both get married in the state of Massachusetts. They have the exact same marriage license issued by the state but only Couple A's marriage license is recognized in all 50 states. Couple B's is only recognized in a little over half the states.

How is that equal?

It's not, but the Full Faith and Credit clause makes it not a Constitutional issue

Equal treatment under the law. You said gays have equal treatment under the law and then admitted they don't. Violation of the 14th Amendment.

So the Constitution is now Unconstitutional. You people are just a joy

 

[Seawytch]

Make the case that gays do not deserve equal treatment under the law.

Non-sequitur, they have equal treatment under the law, that makes no sense

Tell us how this is equal treatment.

Couple A and B both get married in the state of Massachusetts. They have the exact same marriage license issued by the state but only Couple A's marriage license is recognized in all 50 states. Couple B's is only recognized in a little over half the states.

How is that equal?

It's not, but the Full Faith and Credit clause makes it not a Constitutional issue

Equal treatment under the law. You said gays have equal treatment under the law and then admitted they don't. Violation of the 14th Amendment.

So the Constitution is now Unconstitutional. You people are just a joy

No, anti gay marriage laws are unconstitutional.

 

[kaz]

Non-sequitur, they have equal treatment under the law, that makes no sense

Tell us how this is equal treatment.

Couple A and B both get married in the state of Massachusetts. They have the exact same marriage license issued by the state but only Couple A's marriage license is recognized in all 50 states. Couple B's is only recognized in a little over half the states.

How is that equal?

It's not, but the Full Faith and Credit clause makes it not a Constitutional issue

Equal treatment under the law. You said gays have equal treatment under the law and then admitted they don't. Violation of the 14th Amendment.

So the Constitution is now Unconstitutional. You people are just a joy

No, anti gay marriage laws are unconstitutional.

Read the full faith and credit clause, that will explain it to you. Well, it would if you could read...

That the Constitution is Unconstitutional is my favorite argument from you yet! Now that is classic

 

[Seawytch]

Tell us how this is equal treatment.

Couple A and B both get married in the state of Massachusetts. They have the exact same marriage license issued by the state but only Couple A's marriage license is recognized in all 50 states. Couple B's is only recognized in a little over half the states.

How is that equal?

It's not, but the Full Faith and Credit clause makes it not a Constitutional issue

Equal treatment under the law. You said gays have equal treatment under the law and then admitted they don't. Violation of the 14th Amendment.

So the Constitution is now Unconstitutional. You people are just a joy

No, anti gay marriage laws are unconstitutional.

Read the full faith and credit clause, that will explain it to you. Well, it would if you could read...

That the Constitution is Unconstitutional is my favorite argument from you yet! Now that is classic

You made the claim that gays are treated equally and then admitted that they weren't. If Alabama doesn't want to accept ANY marriage license issued by Massachusetts, that would be equal treatment under the law.

 

[kaz]

It's not, but the Full Faith and Credit clause makes it not a Constitutional issue

Equal treatment under the law. You said gays have equal treatment under the law and then admitted they don't. Violation of the 14th Amendment.

So the Constitution is now Unconstitutional. You people are just a joy

No, anti gay marriage laws are unconstitutional.

Read the full faith and credit clause, that will explain it to you. Well, it would if you could read...

That the Constitution is Unconstitutional is my favorite argument from you yet! Now that is classic

You made the claim that gays are treated equally and then admitted that they weren't. If Alabama doesn't want to accept ANY marriage license issued by Massachusetts, that would be equal treatment under the law.

The 14th applies intra-state, the Full Faith and Commerce applies interstate.

For like the dozenth time ... READ the Full Faith and Credit clause, it is very clear

 

[Faun]

Wrong, rightard. Blacks couldn't marry whites ... gays couldn't marry the same gender

Right, which meant for blacks, being black changed who you could marry because whites could marry whites and blacks couldn't. Meanwhile, being gay didn't change who you could marry because straights couldn't marry the same sex either

WTF are you smoking now? Of course straights can marry the same sex once same-sex marriage is determined to be Constitutional.

You are an idiot. Learn to read

It's the exact same thing as blacks not being able to marry whites.

Damn, you are stupid.

Is it? let's see:

Being black changed who you could marry for ... every ... black
Being gay changed who you could marry for ... zero ... gays

Yeah, that's the "exact same thing." Basic logic does not come to you easily, grasshopper

It's your flawed logic. Making interracial marriages applied to everyone. Anyone can marry someone regardless of race. In the same manner, making same-sex marriage also applies to everyone. Anyone can marry someone regardless of gender.

 

[kaz]

Wrong, rightard. Blacks couldn't marry whites ... gays couldn't marry the same gender

Right, which meant for blacks, being black changed who you could marry because whites could marry whites and blacks couldn't. Meanwhile, being gay didn't change who you could marry because straights couldn't marry the same sex either

WTF are you smoking now? Of course straights can marry the same sex once same-sex marriage is determined to be Constitutional.

You are an idiot. Learn to read

It's the exact same thing as blacks not being able to marry whites.

Damn, you are stupid.

Is it? let's see:

Being black changed who you could marry for ... every ... black
Being gay changed who you could marry for ... zero ... gays

Yeah, that's the "exact same thing." Basic logic does not come to you easily, grasshopper

It's your flawed logic. Making interracial marriages applied to everyone. Anyone can marry someone regardless of race. In the same manner, making same-sex marriage also applies to everyone. Anyone can marry someone regardless of gender.

I'll donate $100 to the ACLU if you can show the standard you changed in making that fallacious argument

 

[danielpalos]

That was the theme of your thread. Look at the title:

Why should taxpayers subsidize gay mating?

Answer: because the taxpayers subsidize non-gay mating, and gays are entitled to equal treatment under the law.

Case closed.

Yes, everything is as it seems on the surface, isn't it, Scoobie?

Make the case that gays do not deserve equal treatment under the law.

Non-sequitur, they have equal treatment under the law, that makes no sense

Tell us how this is equal treatment.

Couple A and B both get married in the state of Massachusetts. They have the exact same marriage license issued by the state but only Couple A's marriage license is recognized in all 50 states. Couple B's is only recognized in a little over half the states.

How is that equal?

It's not, but the Full Faith and Credit clause makes it not a Constitutional issue

Why do you believe that? Should we not have Faith or Credit in any Act commuted public for that purpose?

 

[danielpalos]

Wrong, rightard. Blacks couldn't marry whites ... gays couldn't marry the same gender

Right, which meant for blacks, being black changed who you could marry because whites could marry whites and blacks couldn't. Meanwhile, being gay didn't change who you could marry because straights couldn't marry the same sex either

WTF are you smoking now? Of course straights can marry the same sex once same-sex marriage is determined to be Constitutional.

You are an idiot. Learn to read

It's the exact same thing as blacks not being able to marry whites.

Damn, you are stupid.

Is it? let's see:

Being black changed who you could marry for ... every ... black
Being gay changed who you could marry for ... zero ... gays

Yeah, that's the "exact same thing." Basic logic does not come to you easily, grasshopper

It's your flawed logic. Making interracial marriages applied to everyone. Anyone can marry someone regardless of race. In the same manner, making same-sex marriage also applies to everyone. Anyone can marry someone regardless of gender.

I'll donate $100 to the ACLU if you can show the standard you changed in making that fallacious argument

How does the arbitrary and capricious morality of the Right modify the Terms, Citizens and Persons in the several States, to male and female? Our federal Constitution is both gender and race neutral, from Intelligent Design and Inception.

 

[kaz]

Yes, everything is as it seems on the surface, isn't it, Scoobie?

Make the case that gays do not deserve equal treatment under the law.

Non-sequitur, they have equal treatment under the law, that makes no sense

Tell us how this is equal treatment.

Couple A and B both get married in the state of Massachusetts. They have the exact same marriage license issued by the state but only Couple A's marriage license is recognized in all 50 states. Couple B's is only recognized in a little over half the states.

How is that equal?

It's not, but the Full Faith and Credit clause makes it not a Constitutional issue

Why do you believe that? Should we not have Faith or Credit in any Act commuted public for that purpose?

What is wrong with you people, read the Full Faith and Credit clause, it is very clear

 

[kaz]

Right, which meant for blacks, being black changed who you could marry because whites could marry whites and blacks couldn't. Meanwhile, being gay didn't change who you could marry because straights couldn't marry the same sex either

WTF are you smoking now? Of course straights can marry the same sex once same-sex marriage is determined to be Constitutional.

You are an idiot. Learn to read

It's the exact same thing as blacks not being able to marry whites.

Damn, you are stupid.

Is it? let's see:

Being black changed who you could marry for ... every ... black
Being gay changed who you could marry for ... zero ... gays

Yeah, that's the "exact same thing." Basic logic does not come to you easily, grasshopper

It's your flawed logic. Making interracial marriages applied to everyone. Anyone can marry someone regardless of race. In the same manner, making same-sex marriage also applies to everyone. Anyone can marry someone regardless of gender.

I'll donate $100 to the ACLU if you can show the standard you changed in making that fallacious argument

How does the arbitrary and capricious morality of the Right modify the Terms, Citizens and Persons in the several States, to male and female? Our federal Constitution is both gender and race neutral, from Intelligent Design and Inception.

It's interesting how much more intelligent wild turkeys are than domestic ones. I read that they have to keep turkeys in round pens because in a square one they can walk into a corner and panic because they think they are trapped. Interestingly when I became vegetarian, even though I didn't eat a lot of turkey other than holidays, it was one of the few meats I missed

 

[Seawytch]

Equal treatment under the law. You said gays have equal treatment under the law and then admitted they don't. Violation of the 14th Amendment.

So the Constitution is now Unconstitutional. You people are just a joy

No, anti gay marriage laws are unconstitutional.

Read the full faith and credit clause, that will explain it to you. Well, it would if you could read...

That the Constitution is Unconstitutional is my favorite argument from you yet! Now that is classic

You made the claim that gays are treated equally and then admitted that they weren't. If Alabama doesn't want to accept ANY marriage license issued by Massachusetts, that would be equal treatment under the law.

The 14th applies intra-state, the Full Faith and Commerce applies interstate.

For like the dozenth time ... READ the Full Faith and Credit clause, it is very clear

And like for the same dozenth time, treating a marriage license from the same state differently based on who the applicants are, violates the 14th Amendment.

 

[danielpalos]

Make the case that gays do not deserve equal treatment under the law.

Non-sequitur, they have equal treatment under the law, that makes no sense

Tell us how this is equal treatment.

Couple A and B both get married in the state of Massachusetts. They have the exact same marriage license issued by the state but only Couple A's marriage license is recognized in all 50 states. Couple B's is only recognized in a little over half the states.

How is that equal?

It's not, but the Full Faith and Credit clause makes it not a Constitutional issue

Why do you believe that? Should we not have Faith or Credit in any Act commuted public for that purpose?

What is wrong with you people, read the Full Faith and Credit clause, it is very clear

It is enforced by the general government with that body of laws which includes Article 4, Section 2; The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

Should we not have Faith or Credit in any Act commuted public for that purpose?

How does the arbitrary and capricious morality of the Right modify the Terms, Citizens and Persons in the several States, to male and female? Our federal Constitution is both gender and race neutral, from Intelligent Design and Inception.

 

[danielpalos]

WTF are you smoking now? Of course straights can marry the same sex once same-sex marriage is determined to be Constitutional.

You are an idiot. Learn to read

It's the exact same thing as blacks not being able to marry whites.

Damn, you are stupid.

Is it? let's see:

Being black changed who you could marry for ... every ... black
Being gay changed who you could marry for ... zero ... gays

Yeah, that's the "exact same thing." Basic logic does not come to you easily, grasshopper

It's your flawed logic. Making interracial marriages applied to everyone. Anyone can marry someone regardless of race. In the same manner, making same-sex marriage also applies to everyone. Anyone can marry someone regardless of gender.

I'll donate $100 to the ACLU if you can show the standard you changed in making that fallacious argument

How does the arbitrary and capricious morality of the Right modify the Terms, Citizens and Persons in the several States, to male and female? Our federal Constitution is both gender and race neutral, from Intelligent Design and Inception.

It's interesting how much more intelligent wild turkeys are than domestic ones. I read that they have to keep turkeys in round pens because in a square one they can walk into a corner and panic because they think they are trapped. Interestingly when I became vegetarian, even though I didn't eat a lot of turkey other than holidays, it was one of the few meats I missed

It is not interesting at all, for wo-men to have no Thing but diversion and that form of fallacy, while perhaps claiming equality between work and pay in the non-porn sector.

 

[Seawytch]

1. Nobody gets tax breaks for children: I'm good with that, go for it.
2. Only married people (gay or straight) get tax breaks for children: I'm good with that, go for it.
3. Nobody get's married tax breaks: I'm good with that, go for it.
4. Only heterosexuals get married tax breaks: Nope, unconstitutional.

 

[kaz]

You are an idiot. Learn to read

Is it? let's see:

Being black changed who you could marry for ... every ... black
Being gay changed who you could marry for ... zero ... gays

Yeah, that's the "exact same thing." Basic logic does not come to you easily, grasshopper

It's your flawed logic. Making interracial marriages applied to everyone. Anyone can marry someone regardless of race. In the same manner, making same-sex marriage also applies to everyone. Anyone can marry someone regardless of gender.

I'll donate $100 to the ACLU if you can show the standard you changed in making that fallacious argument

How does the arbitrary and capricious morality of the Right modify the Terms, Citizens and Persons in the several States, to male and female? Our federal Constitution is both gender and race neutral, from Intelligent Design and Inception.

It's interesting how much more intelligent wild turkeys are than domestic ones. I read that they have to keep turkeys in round pens because in a square one they can walk into a corner and panic because they think they are trapped. Interestingly when I became vegetarian, even though I didn't eat a lot of turkey other than holidays, it was one of the few meats I missed

It is not interesting at all, for wo-men to have no Thing but diversion and that form of fallacy, while perhaps claiming equality between work and pay in the non-porn sector.

It's hot today, but not as hot as it will be most of the rest of the summer

 

[Faun]

Wrong, rightard. Blacks couldn't marry whites ... gays couldn't marry the same gender

Right, which meant for blacks, being black changed who you could marry because whites could marry whites and blacks couldn't. Meanwhile, being gay didn't change who you could marry because straights couldn't marry the same sex either

WTF are you smoking now? Of course straights can marry the same sex once same-sex marriage is determined to be Constitutional.

You are an idiot. Learn to read

It's the exact same thing as blacks not being able to marry whites.

Damn, you are stupid.

Is it? let's see:

Being black changed who you could marry for ... every ... black
Being gay changed who you could marry for ... zero ... gays

Yeah, that's the "exact same thing." Basic logic does not come to you easily, grasshopper

It's your flawed logic. Making interracial marriages applied to everyone. Anyone can marry someone regardless of race. In the same manner, making same-sex marriage also applies to everyone. Anyone can marry someone regardless of gender.

I'll donate $100 to the ACLU if you can show the standard you changed in making that fallacious argument

You think it's my job to prove me wrong when you can't?