Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[PaintMyHouse]

I agree with that, but my point was I am challenging Paint's standard of "natural" which still strikes me as completely arbitrary

It is nothing of the kind.

 

[kaz]

I am not really arguing a view as to what "natural" means, I just find it an ambiguous term and challenge Paint what he meant by that

And I've cleared that up for you so now you know what natural is.

Yes, it means whatever you want it to at the moment

 

[Faun]

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

Of course it does. The Constitution grants the judiciary judicial power to hear ALL cases arising under the Constitution. ALL cases includes cases of judicial review.

When do you stop being retarded?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Not sure where you get your nonsense from, but abandon it:

Article III
Section 1.
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

Section 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

A lot of words, and none of them give the SCOTUS the power of judicial review. Do you know who actually "tasked" the Supreme Court with judicial review? Are you just going with no, you don't?

Last time I help:

"The state ratification debates

Judicial review was discussed in at least seven of the thirteen state ratifying conventions, and was mentioned by almost two dozen delegates. In each of these conventions, delegates asserted that the proposed Constitution would allow the courts to exercise judicial review. There is no record of any delegate to a state ratifying convention who indicated that the federal courts would not have the power of judicial review.[24]

For example, James Wilson asserted in the Pennsylvania ratifying convention that federal judges would exercise judicial review: "If a law should be made inconsistent with those powers vested by this instrument in Congress, the judges, as a consequence of their independence, and the particular powers of government being defined, will declare such law to be null and void. For the power of the Constitution predominates. Anything, therefore, that shall be enacted by Congress contrary thereto will not have the force of law."[25]

In the Connecticut ratifying convention, Oliver Ellsworth likewise described judicial review as a feature of the Constitution: "This Constitution defines the extent of the powers of the general government. If the general legislature should at any time overleap their limits, the judicial department is a constitutional check. If the United States go beyond their powers, if they make a law which the Constitution does not authorize, it is void; and the judicial power, the national judges, who, to secure their impartiality, are to be made independent, will declare it to be void."[26]

During the ratification process, supporters and opponents of ratification published pamphlets, essays, and speeches debating various aspects of the Constitution. Publications by over a dozen authors in at least twelve of the thirteen states asserted that under the Constitution, the federal courts would have the power of judicial review. There is no record of any opponent to the Constitution who claimed that the Constitution did not involve a power of judicial review.[27]

After reviewing the statements made by the founders, one scholar concluded: "The evidence from the Constitutional Convention and from the state ratification conventions is overwhelming that the original public meaning of the term 'judicial power' [in Article III] included the power to nullify unconstitutional laws."[28]"
Judicial review in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Opinions and discussions at the Constitutional convention aren't a power. The question is ... who ... gave the Supreme court that power? Who "tasked" them with judicial review? It's not in the Constitution, and opinions aren't granting a power. Who did?

Even if I agreed with you, and I don't, why, exactly, do you think it would matter? Oh right, it doesn't.

I didn't ask an opinion, I asked who "tasked" the supreme court with judicial review. So far you are striking out on that

The Founders. Happy now?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Yes, it means whatever you want it to at the moment

Nope, it means what is not man-made, like marriage, and God.

 

[toxicmedia]

Yet he defends the courts ruling states cannot prevent whites and blacks from marrying. To show how retarded he is, he argues gays are not treated unequally since they can marry someone of the opposite gender -- applying that logic to blacks is like saying blacks were not treated unequally ... they could have married any other black of the opposite gender.

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

They are not treated the same as everyone else, despite your repeated pleas. Heterosexuals have the right to marry the person they love. Homosexuals are denied the right to marry the person they love.

Only in a demented brain are those equal.

Sorry I made you cry, guy. Toxic did warn me about that.

"who they love" and isn't a legal standard, it's one for you and your gay boy friends to hold hands and cry over while you pick out tapestry

Right Kaz...because marriage has nothing to do with "love"...right?

Sounds like you want to bring back the pre-renaissance practice of marrying only for financial reasons.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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

They are not treated the same as everyone else, despite your repeated pleas. Heterosexuals have the right to marry the person they love. Homosexuals are denied the right to marry the person they love.

Only in a demented brain are those equal.

Sorry I made you cry, guy. Toxic did warn me about that.

"who they love" and isn't a legal standard, it's one for you and your gay boy friends to hold hands and cry over while you pick out tapestry

Right Kaz...because marriage has nothing to do with "love"...right?

Sounds like you want to bring back the pre-renaissance practice of marrying only for financial reasons.

He wants to bring back Anarchy.

 

[toxicmedia]

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

Humans are omnivores, and have the teeth for it, they are not vegetarians of any kind. They are predators, meat-eaters.

Gays can't reproduce, so their natural act on their own accord would lead to their doom, heterosexual sex saves them from extinction. Doesn't sound very natural

The ratio of gays to straights must be static, or gays would not continue to exist.

There will always be plenty of breeders, so allowing gays to legally marry will not change a thing about long term human viablity

I agree with that, but my point was I am challenging Paint's standard of "natural" which still strikes me as completely arbitrary

Depends on how you define natural.

nat·u·ral
ˈnaCH(ə)rəl/
adjective
adjective: natural

1. 1.
   existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.
   .
2. 2.
   of or in agreement with the character or makeup of, or circumstances surrounding, someone or something.

I guess I'm using #1, and it sounds like you're using #2

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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

Humans are omnivores, and have the teeth for it, they are not vegetarians of any kind. They are predators, meat-eaters.

Gays can't reproduce, so their natural act on their own accord would lead to their doom, heterosexual sex saves them from extinction. Doesn't sound very natural

The ratio of gays to straights must be static, or gays would not continue to exist.

There will always be plenty of breeders, so allowing gays to legally marry will not change a thing about long term human viablity

I agree with that, but my point was I am challenging Paint's standard of "natural" which still strikes me as completely arbitrary

Depends on how you define natural.

nat·u·ral
ˈnaCH(ə)rəl/
adjective
adjective: natural

1. 1.
   existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.
   .
2. 2.
   of or in agreement with the character or makeup of, or circumstances surrounding, someone or something.

I guess I'm using #1, and it sounds like your using #2

He's using number 2 alright...

 

[toxicmedia]

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

They are not treated the same as everyone else, despite your repeated pleas. Heterosexuals have the right to marry the person they love. Homosexuals are denied the right to marry the person they love.

Only in a demented brain are those equal.

Sorry I made you cry, guy. Toxic did warn me about that.

"who they love" and isn't a legal standard, it's one for you and your gay boy friends to hold hands and cry over while you pick out tapestry

Right Kaz...because marriage has nothing to do with "love"...right?

Sounds like you want to bring back the pre-renaissance practice of marrying only for financial reasons.

He wants to bring back Anarchy.

Well, righties in America today have revised history back to the 1600's, to support the concept of "what might have been, if only conservatives had been in charge, forever"

Why not just keep going back to the dawn of time!

 

[Faun]

Yet he defends the courts ruling states cannot prevent whites and blacks from marrying. To show how retarded he is, he argues gays are not treated unequally since they can marry someone of the opposite gender -- applying that logic to blacks is like saying blacks were not treated unequally ... they could have married any other black of the opposite gender.

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

They are not treated the same as everyone else, despite your repeated pleas. Heterosexuals have the right to marry the person they love. Homosexuals are denied the right to marry the person they love.

Only in a demented brain are those equal.

Sorry I made you cry, guy. Toxic did warn me about that.

"who they love" and isn't a legal standard, it's one for you and your gay boy friends to hold hands and cry over while you pick out tapestry

You didn't make me cry. That you think you did is merely more evidence that you're nuts.

And "who they love" is indeed a legal standard. Here ... I'll show you AGAIN...

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967): “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”​

... how many more times do I need to educate you on this until it penetrates your shield of ignorance? Just throw out a number so I have an idea...

 

[kaz]

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

Of course it does. The Constitution grants the judiciary judicial power to hear ALL cases arising under the Constitution. ALL cases includes cases of judicial review.

When do you stop being retarded?

No, it doesn't say that, stop being retarded. They are "tasked" with it, but who tasked them? Simple question, and you're a simpleton, it's in your native language. Stop running away and provide the simple, direct, clear answer. There is one

 

[kaz]

A lot of words, and none of them give the SCOTUS the power of judicial review. Do you know who actually "tasked" the Supreme Court with judicial review? Are you just going with no, you don't?

Last time I help:

"The state ratification debates

Judicial review was discussed in at least seven of the thirteen state ratifying conventions, and was mentioned by almost two dozen delegates. In each of these conventions, delegates asserted that the proposed Constitution would allow the courts to exercise judicial review. There is no record of any delegate to a state ratifying convention who indicated that the federal courts would not have the power of judicial review.[24]

For example, James Wilson asserted in the Pennsylvania ratifying convention that federal judges would exercise judicial review: "If a law should be made inconsistent with those powers vested by this instrument in Congress, the judges, as a consequence of their independence, and the particular powers of government being defined, will declare such law to be null and void. For the power of the Constitution predominates. Anything, therefore, that shall be enacted by Congress contrary thereto will not have the force of law."[25]

In the Connecticut ratifying convention, Oliver Ellsworth likewise described judicial review as a feature of the Constitution: "This Constitution defines the extent of the powers of the general government. If the general legislature should at any time overleap their limits, the judicial department is a constitutional check. If the United States go beyond their powers, if they make a law which the Constitution does not authorize, it is void; and the judicial power, the national judges, who, to secure their impartiality, are to be made independent, will declare it to be void."[26]

During the ratification process, supporters and opponents of ratification published pamphlets, essays, and speeches debating various aspects of the Constitution. Publications by over a dozen authors in at least twelve of the thirteen states asserted that under the Constitution, the federal courts would have the power of judicial review. There is no record of any opponent to the Constitution who claimed that the Constitution did not involve a power of judicial review.[27]

After reviewing the statements made by the founders, one scholar concluded: "The evidence from the Constitutional Convention and from the state ratification conventions is overwhelming that the original public meaning of the term 'judicial power' [in Article III] included the power to nullify unconstitutional laws."[28]"
Judicial review in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Opinions and discussions at the Constitutional convention aren't a power. The question is ... who ... gave the Supreme court that power? Who "tasked" them with judicial review? It's not in the Constitution, and opinions aren't granting a power. Who did?

Even if I agreed with you, and I don't, why, exactly, do you think it would matter? Oh right, it doesn't.

I didn't ask an opinion, I asked who "tasked" the supreme court with judicial review. So far you are striking out on that

The Founders. Happy now?

The "founders" also said our rights come from our creator, so is that a legal standard now to you as well?

Which "founders" are you referring to? There were specific ones. That you're dancing and evading the question shows you know fauns claim they were "tasked" with it to be at best misleading and in reality disingenuous. They weren't "tasked" with it as a responsibility, they took it as a power

 

[kaz]

Yes, it means whatever you want it to at the moment

Nope, it means what is not man-made, like marriage, and God.

LOL, so only man is not natural. Tell me again how you're the adult, that always cracks me up

 

[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

They are not treated the same as everyone else, despite your repeated pleas. Heterosexuals have the right to marry the person they love. Homosexuals are denied the right to marry the person they love.

Only in a demented brain are those equal.

Sorry I made you cry, guy. Toxic did warn me about that.

"who they love" and isn't a legal standard, it's one for you and your gay boy friends to hold hands and cry over while you pick out tapestry

Right Kaz...because marriage has nothing to do with "love"...right?

Non-sequitur

Sounds like you want to bring back the pre-renaissance practice of marrying only for financial reasons.

Strawman

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Yes, it means whatever you want it to at the moment

Nope, it means what is not man-made, like marriage, and God.

LOL, so only man is not natural. Tell me again how you're the adult, that always cracks me up

Man is natural, and a disease, dumbass.

 

[kaz]

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

They are not treated the same as everyone else, despite your repeated pleas. Heterosexuals have the right to marry the person they love. Homosexuals are denied the right to marry the person they love.

Only in a demented brain are those equal.

Sorry I made you cry, guy. Toxic did warn me about that.

"who they love" and isn't a legal standard, it's one for you and your gay boy friends to hold hands and cry over while you pick out tapestry

Right Kaz...because marriage has nothing to do with "love"...right?

Sounds like you want to bring back the pre-renaissance practice of marrying only for financial reasons.

He wants to bring back Anarchy.

Ah, the reeking intelligence of the left. I don't want all government, so I want anarchy. Marxism and anarchy, my only choices, according to you. Maybe "intelligence" isn't what you're reeking of...

 

[kaz]

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

Humans are omnivores, and have the teeth for it, they are not vegetarians of any kind. They are predators, meat-eaters.

Gays can't reproduce, so their natural act on their own accord would lead to their doom, heterosexual sex saves them from extinction. Doesn't sound very natural

The ratio of gays to straights must be static, or gays would not continue to exist.

There will always be plenty of breeders, so allowing gays to legally marry will not change a thing about long term human viablity

I agree with that, but my point was I am challenging Paint's standard of "natural" which still strikes me as completely arbitrary

Depends on how you define natural.

nat·u·ral
ˈnaCH(ə)rəl/
adjective
adjective: natural

1. 1.
   existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.
   .
2. 2.
   of or in agreement with the character or makeup of, or circumstances surrounding, someone or something.

I guess I'm using #1, and it sounds like you're using #2

I agree with that. And I agree you're being consistent. Paint is using neither, he's making it up as he goes

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The "founders" also said our rights come from our creator, so is that a legal standard now to you as well?

Nope, not in the Constitution they didn't, and that established the courts and the balance of power, as well as judicial review, which fucks you good.

And let's say, for the sake of argument, that they did take that power, so what? They have it now which also fucks you good.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Marxism and anarchy, my only choices, according to you.

Strawman...

Also, not what I said.