Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[toxicmedia]

Virginia: forbid marriage between two persons of different races.
Georgia: forbid marriage between two persons of the same gender

Virginia: being black changed who you could marry for ... every ... black
Georgia: being gay changed who you could marry for ... zero ... gays

They are not comparable, Chuckie

You keep saying that, but it isn't true. Gender discrimination is just like racial discrimination. Some blacks wanted to marry whites but were prohibited. Some men want to marry men and some women want to marry women but are prohibited. Racial discrimination/Gender discrimination = Same/Same.

If his argument were in any way valid, it would have been used by those arguing against legal gay marriage in front of the Supreme Court. Don't you think?

I'm sure she does, she's a leftist automaton like you. But I don't worship lawyers like you two so her agreement is irrelevant. I think what I think, not what I'm told to think. You wouldn't understand, you are told not to. Thinking would bring about the destruction of liberalism as you would realize the stupidity you are parroting

Having just dropped back into this thread...I'm struck by the following 3 posts, and for some odd reason...reading them conjured up that old Sesame Street segment where they would show you 3 or 4 things, and one of them didn't belong, (and no, I'm not high)

You keep saying that, but it isn't true. Gender discrimination is just like racial discrimination. Some blacks wanted to marry whites but were prohibited. Some men want to marry men and some women want to marry women but are prohibited. Racial discrimination/Gender discrimination = Same/Same.

If his argument were in any way valid, it would have been used by those arguing against legal gay marriage in front of the Supreme Court. Don't you think?

I'm sure she does, she's a leftist automaton like you. But I don't worship lawyers like you two so her agreement is irrelevant. I think what I think, not what I'm told to think. You wouldn't understand, you are told not to. Thinking would bring about the destruction of liberalism as you would realize the stupidity you are parroting

I tried to make up appropriate lyrics to the tune of the Sesame Street song, but doing that grew tiresome because it wasn't all that funny.

So it'll be in prose.

Which of these posts convey reasoned argument, and which are a collection of insults, epithets, and anger?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Who "tasked" the Supreme Court with that?

The Constitution, and American history.

Show where in the Constitution it says that. Hint, it doesn't. Someone did though, do you know who "tasked" the supreme court with judicial review?

And how can "American history" task anyone with anything? That's s stupid. If anything, American history would say marriage is a man and a woman, you just shot yourself in the ass

Help yourself. Start here: Judicial review in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I already know the answer, I wanted you to admit it.

Who "tasked" the Supreme Court with judicial review?

Faun keeps running away from that question too.

When danger reared it's ugly head, Paint&Faun turned their tails and fled...

I posted what you needed. Why you think it matters I have no idea? Just you rejecting reality again.

The Constitution created the courts, the balance of power, and American history made it into what it is today, the final arbiter of constitutionality.

 

[kaz]

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

What part of that don't you understand?

You're a moron. Banning interracial marriage was the same type of bigoted vile authoritarian bull shit that bigots like you are doing to gays today.

Whether on a personal level it is the same bigoted bull shit or not, the law isn't about fairness, it's about the law and a literal reading of it. And literally, gays are treated the same as everyone else.

But you like to compare that there weren't gay specific laws to actual laws to dictate to blacks where they can sit, drink and go to the bath room. You are full of shit that they are the same, not at all

The new law will be only homosexuals can marry. Don't worry though, you'll be equal, you can marry any person of the same sex you wish to...

If my choice is that or heterosexual government marriage, I'll pick that. At least most government marriage would be gone.

Not sure what your point is, but you probably don't either

The point is in the future you'll be equal, to marry anyone of the same sex you like.

What about government marrying no one and being equal? That's what I want. I thought government marriage is getting to marry who you want. I want to marry no one. As opposed to Skylar who wants to marry himself. I thought you were in it for the right to marry who you want. No so much, huh?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Vegetarian eh? Ignoring nature again, as usual. And domesticated turkeys are stupid as hell, like most people here.

I do eat fish and seafood, so I'm not completely vegetarian

Doesn't matter, you're still rejecting nature. What a surprise...

You mean like sex being between men and women? No wait, that was you rejecting nature...

Heterosexuality is natural. So is homosexuality, and bi, and pan, and asexuality. Nature, unlike you, doesn't think in black and white. That's why there are many sexes, many genders, and many sexual orientations.

There are "many" sexual orientations? Let's count. One, two. Wow, that's not "many"

And no, gay is not the norm, if the norm is your standard, then gay marriage is out. Only 2.2% of the population are gay according to the CDC who studies the gay disease

Never said it was the norm, I said it was natural, and it is. And there many sexual orientations, many.

 

[kaz]

Who "tasked" the Supreme Court with that?

The Constitution, and American history.

Show where in the Constitution it says that. Hint, it doesn't. Someone did though, do you know who "tasked" the supreme court with judicial review?

And how can "American history" task anyone with anything? That's s stupid. If anything, American history would say marriage is a man and a woman, you just shot yourself in the ass

Help yourself. Start here: Judicial review in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I already know the answer, I wanted you to admit it.

Who "tasked" the Supreme Court with judicial review?

Faun keeps running away from that question too.

When danger reared it's ugly head, Paint&Faun turned their tails and fled...

I posted what you needed. Why you think it matters I have no idea? Just you rejecting reality again.

The Constitution created the courts, the balance of power, and American history made it into what it is today, the final arbiter of constitutionality.

No, you are wrong. The Constitution did not make the Supreme Court any arbiter of Constitutionality much less the "final" one. You are ... wait for it ... wrong ... You're used to that, aren't you?

So answer the question. It's a simple one. Who "tasked" the Supreme Court with judicial review? Stop running and hiding and answer the question, Spanky. So you admit you can't?

 

[kaz]

I do eat fish and seafood, so I'm not completely vegetarian

Doesn't matter, you're still rejecting nature. What a surprise...

You mean like sex being between men and women? No wait, that was you rejecting nature...

Heterosexuality is natural. So is homosexuality, and bi, and pan, and asexuality. Nature, unlike you, doesn't think in black and white. That's why there are many sexes, many genders, and many sexual orientations.

There are "many" sexual orientations? Let's count. One, two. Wow, that's not "many"

And no, gay is not the norm, if the norm is your standard, then gay marriage is out. Only 2.2% of the population are gay according to the CDC who studies the gay disease

Never said it was the norm, I said it was natural, and it is. And there many sexual orientations, many.

Natural based on what? What does that even mean?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

What about government marrying no one and being equal? That's what I want.

What you want ain't reality, which you can't deal with, obviously.

 

[kaz]

Virginia: forbid marriage between two persons of different races.
Georgia: forbid marriage between two persons of the same gender

Virginia: being black changed who you could marry for ... every ... black
Georgia: being gay changed who you could marry for ... zero ... gays

They are not comparable, Chuckie

You keep saying that, but it isn't true. Gender discrimination is just like racial discrimination. Some blacks wanted to marry whites but were prohibited. Some men want to marry men and some women want to marry women but are prohibited. Racial discrimination/Gender discrimination = Same/Same.

If his argument were in any way valid, it would have been used by those arguing against legal gay marriage in front of the Supreme Court. Don't you think?

I'm sure she does, she's a leftist automaton like you. But I don't worship lawyers like you two so her agreement is irrelevant. I think what I think, not what I'm told to think. You wouldn't understand, you are told not to. Thinking would bring about the destruction of liberalism as you would realize the stupidity you are parroting

Having just dropped back into this thread...I'm struck by the following 3 posts, and for some odd reason...reading them conjured up that old Sesame Street segment where they would show you 3 or 4 things, and one of them didn't belong, (and no, I'm not high)

You keep saying that, but it isn't true. Gender discrimination is just like racial discrimination. Some blacks wanted to marry whites but were prohibited. Some men want to marry men and some women want to marry women but are prohibited. Racial discrimination/Gender discrimination = Same/Same.

If his argument were in any way valid, it would have been used by those arguing against legal gay marriage in front of the Supreme Court. Don't you think?

I'm sure she does, she's a leftist automaton like you. But I don't worship lawyers like you two so her agreement is irrelevant. I think what I think, not what I'm told to think. You wouldn't understand, you are told not to. Thinking would bring about the destruction of liberalism as you would realize the stupidity you are parroting

I tried to make up appropriate lyrics to the tune of the Sesame Street song, but doing that grew tiresome because it wasn't all that funny.

So it'll be in prose.

Which of these posts convey reasoned argument, and which are a collection of insults, epithets, and anger?

And which post is a cherry picked contrived one? It's yours. Oops, I wasn't supposed to give you the answer

 

[kaz]

What about government marrying no one and being equal? That's what I want.

What you want ain't reality, which you can't deal with, obviously.

What you want wasn't reality until the courts started decreeing it either

 

[toxicmedia]

Vegetarian eh? Ignoring nature again, as usual. And domesticated turkeys are stupid as hell, like most people here.

I do eat fish and seafood, so I'm not completely vegetarian

Doesn't matter, you're still rejecting nature. What a surprise...

You mean like sex being between men and women? No wait, that was you rejecting nature...

Heterosexuality is natural. So is homosexuality, and bi, and pan, and asexuality. Nature, unlike you, doesn't think in black and white. That's why there are many sexes, many genders, and many sexual orientations.

There are "many" sexual orientations? Let's count. One, two. Wow, that's not "many"

And no, gay is not the norm, if the norm is your standard, then gay marriage is out. Only 2.2% of the population are gay according to the CDC who studies the gay disease

Many sexual orientations?

...LBGT.......that's too confusing for you?

But within the context of marriage, there is really only same sex, and opposite sex

I know you need that part of the argument to include confusion.

Allowing same sex marriage actually simplifies the measurable factors that define marriage.

Instead of 2 adults, a male, and a female, of sound mind and body

We have 2 adults, of sound mind and body.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Doesn't matter, you're still rejecting nature. What a surprise...

You mean like sex being between men and women? No wait, that was you rejecting nature...

Heterosexuality is natural. So is homosexuality, and bi, and pan, and asexuality. Nature, unlike you, doesn't think in black and white. That's why there are many sexes, many genders, and many sexual orientations.

There are "many" sexual orientations? Let's count. One, two. Wow, that's not "many"

And no, gay is not the norm, if the norm is your standard, then gay marriage is out. Only 2.2% of the population are gay according to the CDC who studies the gay disease

Never said it was the norm, I said it was natural, and it is. And there many sexual orientations, many.

Natural based on what? What does that even mean?

It means normally found in nature, not man-made.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

What about government marrying no one and being equal? That's what I want.

What you want ain't reality, which you can't deal with, obviously.

What you want wasn't reality until the courts started decreeing it either

No, equality is has been around for a while, it just wasn't fully established in this case.

 

[toxicmedia]

Virginia: being black changed who you could marry for ... every ... black
Georgia: being gay changed who you could marry for ... zero ... gays

They are not comparable, Chuckie

You keep saying that, but it isn't true. Gender discrimination is just like racial discrimination. Some blacks wanted to marry whites but were prohibited. Some men want to marry men and some women want to marry women but are prohibited. Racial discrimination/Gender discrimination = Same/Same.

If his argument were in any way valid, it would have been used by those arguing against legal gay marriage in front of the Supreme Court. Don't you think?

I'm sure she does, she's a leftist automaton like you. But I don't worship lawyers like you two so her agreement is irrelevant. I think what I think, not what I'm told to think. You wouldn't understand, you are told not to. Thinking would bring about the destruction of liberalism as you would realize the stupidity you are parroting

Having just dropped back into this thread...I'm struck by the following 3 posts, and for some odd reason...reading them conjured up that old Sesame Street segment where they would show you 3 or 4 things, and one of them didn't belong, (and no, I'm not high)

You keep saying that, but it isn't true. Gender discrimination is just like racial discrimination. Some blacks wanted to marry whites but were prohibited. Some men want to marry men and some women want to marry women but are prohibited. Racial discrimination/Gender discrimination = Same/Same.

If his argument were in any way valid, it would have been used by those arguing against legal gay marriage in front of the Supreme Court. Don't you think?

I'm sure she does, she's a leftist automaton like you. But I don't worship lawyers like you two so her agreement is irrelevant. I think what I think, not what I'm told to think. You wouldn't understand, you are told not to. Thinking would bring about the destruction of liberalism as you would realize the stupidity you are parroting

I tried to make up appropriate lyrics to the tune of the Sesame Street song, but doing that grew tiresome because it wasn't all that funny.

So it'll be in prose.

Which of these posts convey reasoned argument, and which are a collection of insults, epithets, and anger?

And which post is a cherry picked contrived one? It's yours. Oops, I wasn't supposed to give you the answer

It was the last three posts from the thread when I dropped in.

You can dismiss try to dismiss that post, if you think you have better ones to offer, but I looked, and I can't find any that are different

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The Constitution, and American history.

Show where in the Constitution it says that. Hint, it doesn't. Someone did though, do you know who "tasked" the supreme court with judicial review?

And how can "American history" task anyone with anything? That's s stupid. If anything, American history would say marriage is a man and a woman, you just shot yourself in the ass

Help yourself. Start here: Judicial review in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I already know the answer, I wanted you to admit it.

Who "tasked" the Supreme Court with judicial review?

Faun keeps running away from that question too.

When danger reared it's ugly head, Paint&Faun turned their tails and fled...

I posted what you needed. Why you think it matters I have no idea? Just you rejecting reality again.

The Constitution created the courts, the balance of power, and American history made it into what it is today, the final arbiter of constitutionality.

No, you are wrong. The Constitution did not make the Supreme Court any arbiter of Constitutionality much less the "final" one. You are ... wait for it ... wrong ... You're used to that, aren't you?

So answer the question. It's a simple one. Who "tasked" the Supreme Court with judicial review? Stop running and hiding and answer the question, Spanky. So you admit you can't?

The Constitution created the courts, the balance of power, and American history made it into what it is today, the final arbiter of constitutionality.

 

[kaz]

I do eat fish and seafood, so I'm not completely vegetarian

Doesn't matter, you're still rejecting nature. What a surprise...

You mean like sex being between men and women? No wait, that was you rejecting nature...

Heterosexuality is natural. So is homosexuality, and bi, and pan, and asexuality. Nature, unlike you, doesn't think in black and white. That's why there are many sexes, many genders, and many sexual orientations.

There are "many" sexual orientations? Let's count. One, two. Wow, that's not "many"

And no, gay is not the norm, if the norm is your standard, then gay marriage is out. Only 2.2% of the population are gay according to the CDC who studies the gay disease

Many sexual orientations?

...LBGT.......that's too confusing for you?

But within the context of marriage, there is really only same sex, and opposite sex

I know you need that part of the argument to include confusion.

Allowing same sex marriage actually simplifies the measurable factors that define marriage.

Instead of 2 adults, a male, and a female, of sound mind and body

We have 2 adults, of sound mind and body.

Paint said there are "many" not me

 

[Faun]

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?

I was just curious if you did that fallacy intentionally or not. I marvel that you can read your argument and not immediately see how you changed the 14th from being a requirement of the legislature to be enforced by the courts to being an authority to legislate from the bench. I guess I shouldn't marvel at it. While it's hard to believe you don't follow simple logic, you consistently don't

I've said it before and I'll no doubt have to say it again, you don't get to determine how the Supreme Court is tasked with determining which laws are Constitutional or not.

Who "tasked" the Supreme Court with that?

It's derived from the judicial power granted by the Constitution.

 

[kaz]

You mean like sex being between men and women? No wait, that was you rejecting nature...

Heterosexuality is natural. So is homosexuality, and bi, and pan, and asexuality. Nature, unlike you, doesn't think in black and white. That's why there are many sexes, many genders, and many sexual orientations.

There are "many" sexual orientations? Let's count. One, two. Wow, that's not "many"

And no, gay is not the norm, if the norm is your standard, then gay marriage is out. Only 2.2% of the population are gay according to the CDC who studies the gay disease

Never said it was the norm, I said it was natural, and it is. And there many sexual orientations, many.

Natural based on what? What does that even mean?

It means normally found in nature, not man-made.

Most sex in nature is heterosexual, if that's your standard then everything is "natural"

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Heterosexuality is natural. So is homosexuality, and bi, and pan, and asexuality. Nature, unlike you, doesn't think in black and white. That's why there are many sexes, many genders, and many sexual orientations.

There are "many" sexual orientations? Let's count. One, two. Wow, that's not "many"

And no, gay is not the norm, if the norm is your standard, then gay marriage is out. Only 2.2% of the population are gay according to the CDC who studies the gay disease

Never said it was the norm, I said it was natural, and it is. And there many sexual orientations, many.

Natural based on what? What does that even mean?

It means normally found in nature, not man-made.

Most sex in nature is heterosexual, if that's your standard then everything is "natural"

I follow nature's guidelines, you reject them.

 

[kaz]

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?

I was just curious if you did that fallacy intentionally or not. I marvel that you can read your argument and not immediately see how you changed the 14th from being a requirement of the legislature to be enforced by the courts to being an authority to legislate from the bench. I guess I shouldn't marvel at it. While it's hard to believe you don't follow simple logic, you consistently don't

I've said it before and I'll no doubt have to say it again, you don't get to determine how the Supreme Court is tasked with determining which laws are Constitutional or not.

Who "tasked" the Supreme Court with that?

It's derived from the judicial power granted by the Constitution.

Wrong, the Constitution doesn't mention judicial review in any way directly or indirectly.

Try again, who "tasked" the Supreme Court with judicial review? There is a specific answer to the question

 

[kaz]

There are "many" sexual orientations? Let's count. One, two. Wow, that's not "many"

And no, gay is not the norm, if the norm is your standard, then gay marriage is out. Only 2.2% of the population are gay according to the CDC who studies the gay disease

Never said it was the norm, I said it was natural, and it is. And there many sexual orientations, many.

Natural based on what? What does that even mean?

It means normally found in nature, not man-made.

Most sex in nature is heterosexual, if that's your standard then everything is "natural"

I follow nature's guidelines, you reject them.

Actually, eating only vegetables and fish and seafood is found in nature. So according to you, it is natural.

Why does it bother you? I don't get what you're driving at