Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[kaz]

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!

Who are you quoting?

It was a tangent, wasn't accusing you of revisionism.

What I had in mind about you is how you seem to talk about things like procreation as necessary for marriage

OK, but it isn't just me. If you are paraphrasing what you think someone's view is, you don't use quote marks. You use quote marks when those are the exact words they used and I never heard anyone use those words

 

[PaintMyHouse]

"alright" isn't a word, spell checker

And your standard keeps changing. Gays are natural because gay happens in nature. But when the only meat I eat is fish and seafood, suddenly other standards appear...

Yes it is, dumbass. And, humans are meat eaters, predators. Ignoring that means you are ignoring nature and the natural human diet which includes meat.

Exactly, with gays your standard for "natural" was that other animals do it.

With me your standard suddenly becomes humans, "humans are meat eaters."

That is a clear change in your standard. You went from what non-humans do to what humans do as the standard for natural.

ToxicMedia

So you claim to want to have a logical discussion rather than trade insults. I'm good with either, but I don't mix them. Well, why are you being silent on this? You are demonstrating some truth to that you want a logical discussion, but clearly you see his completely changed standard. Why the silence?

I have never changed my standard. Is it found it nature or not? Meat eaters? Yes. Omnivores? Yes? Homosexuals? Yes? Marriage? No. God? No.

 

[kaz]

"alright" isn't a word, spell checker

And your standard keeps changing. Gays are natural because gay happens in nature. But when the only meat I eat is fish and seafood, suddenly other standards appear...

Yes it is, dumbass. And, humans are meat eaters, predators. Ignoring that means you are ignoring nature and the natural human diet which includes meat.

So with gays your standard was what other animals do, now with food your standard is what people do.

And you think your standard isn't changing? LOL.

Yeah, Toxic, they are logical and I just insult, gotcha

My standard is what is found in nature. Homosexuals are found in nature. So are predators, omnivores, like humans.

That was your standard for gays, but for meat your standard for natural became humans, "humans are meat eaters"

 

[Faun]

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

Yes, it does say that...

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution​

 

[PaintMyHouse]

"alright" isn't a word, spell checker

And your standard keeps changing. Gays are natural because gay happens in nature. But when the only meat I eat is fish and seafood, suddenly other standards appear...

Yes it is, dumbass. And, humans are meat eaters, predators. Ignoring that means you are ignoring nature and the natural human diet which includes meat.

So with gays your standard was what other animals do, now with food your standard is what people do.

And you think your standard isn't changing? LOL.

Yeah, Toxic, they are logical and I just insult, gotcha

My standard is what is found in nature. Homosexuals are found in nature. So are predators, omnivores, like humans.

That was your standard for gays, but for meat your standard for natural became humans, "humans are meat eaters"

No, my standard is predators, which humans are, meaning meat eaters, some of them gay.

 

[toxicmedia]

"alright" isn't a word, spell checker

And your standard keeps changing. Gays are natural because gay happens in nature. But when the only meat I eat is fish and seafood, suddenly other standards appear...

Yes it is, dumbass. And, humans are meat eaters, predators. Ignoring that means you are ignoring nature and the natural human diet which includes meat.

So with gays your standard was what other animals do, now with food your standard is what people do.

And you think your standard isn't changing? LOL.

Yeah, Toxic, they are logical and I just insult, gotcha

My standard is what is found in nature. Homosexuals are found in nature. So are predators, omnivores, like humans.

Polygamy within the zoological definition, just means animals with more than one mate, because animals don't get "married"

Monogamy within the zoological definition, just means the habit of having only one mate at a time.

Morality issues of human sexual relations have no place within the scope of "nature", and within this scope, marriage is irrelevant, so is the Bible.

 

[kaz]

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...

I'm always struck by, but never amazed by, the passion those who oppose gay marriage display.

It seems to come from some kind of spiritual devotion, yet their arguments run for refuge in objectivity when confronted with the realities of how they affect the lives of gay people.

I know, because I grew up with my brother who was in the closet till he was 25, and displayed amazing strength after he came out. He's matured far beyond my futile hatred for people who judge gays, and has never needed me to fight his battles. As he pointed out..."you just want to fight people about me, for your own reasons". Once, long ago, he set me straight and told me that "what happens in my bedroom is no more worthy of discussion than what happens in yours, and I don't want to be defined by what happens behind the closed doors of my bedroom". He is right...besides what happens there...he is absolutely no different than me, not one tiny bit.

Where I live, gays have been out for a long time. (Northern California). So my defense of him is rather insulting at the end of the day.

Then there are people like Kaz, who I need to think are not bad people, or I just make myself crazy. But what he probably doesn't realize, is that for gay people, who maybe live in an area not quite so gay friendly...people who think the way he does, are truly the "wolves at the door" for gay people, and probably have no idea how horrible that is.

That is often true. In my case, I like to screw with the left and hold you to your own standards. You have a problem:

- You support progressive taxes and the death tax

- You want gay couples to get out of it

Why should I agree to let you out of your trap? I think taxes should be flat, no one should pay a tax for dying since we paid repeated taxes along the way. Parentage rights and responsibilities should be based on genes not paper. There is in fact nothing that government marriage solves for some citizens that couldn't be solved better for all citizens. Government should teat all it's citizens the same, and they don't either according to what the right wants or to what you want

I'm not concerned about the tax implications of allowing same sex marriage

I can't imagine we're talking about a significant amount of money

That isn't the point. The point is that the left want the progressive taxes and death tax, then you want to let your pets off of paying them.

The other financial point was how Democrats use that same argument. For example, on the government shutdown. That Obama was so incompetent he spent more shutting down government than operating it became an attack on Republicans for costing money. The Republicans wanted spending cuts, but they weren't allowed to cost government any money to get them. Leftists have endless contradictions, hypocrisies and double standards, and you don't get it when that's pointed out.

Just so you know, my actual view on gay government marriage is that as long as it's done Constitutionally through the legislature, then I don't care about it any more or less than any other government marriage

 

[kaz]

I think taxes should be flat, no one should pay a tax for dying since we paid repeated taxes along the way.

What a shame for you that Adam Smith rejected both of those eh?

I agree with a lot of Adam Smith wrote, but where did you get the stupid idea he speaks for me? You do have a great source of stupid ideas, they never stop coming.

You know who does speak for me? Kaz does

 

[kaz]

Being black changed who you could marry for all blacks, being gay changed who they could marry for zero gays.

That makes it a job for the legislature, not the courts to legislate

The courts disagree. How long before you accept that?

I've never not accepted that the courts don't agree. Another product of your stupid idea generator.

You know what Adam Smith and the courts have in common? Not much, but one thing is that neither tells me what to think. I guess that's a foreign concept to you

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Just so you know, my actual view on gay government marriage is that as long as it's done Constitutionally through the legislature, then I don't care about it any more or less than any other government marriage

How lucky for us then, since your actual view matters not a damn.

 

[kaz]

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.

Yet you couldn't find judicial review in the Constitution. No one else can either. Do you know who actually "tasked" the SCOTUS with judicial review?

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.


Such a a shame for you, that you are wrong, and that the issue was debated even before the Constitution was ratified. They wouldn't have done so if it wasn't in there, which it was, and is.

Again, judicial review's not in there, Scoobie

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I think taxes should be flat, no one should pay a tax for dying since we paid repeated taxes along the way.

What a shame for you that Adam Smith rejected both of those eh?

I agree with a lot of Adam Smith wrote, but where did you get the stupid idea he speaks for me? You do have a great source of stupid ideas, they never stop coming.

You know who does speak for me? Kaz does

Senility speaks for you, obviously.

 

[Faun]

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...

"alright" isn't a word, spell checker

And your standard keeps changing. Gays are natural because gay happens in nature. But when the only meat I eat is fish and seafood, suddenly other standards appear...

Great .... ... even Merriam Webster knows you're an imbecile...

Alright Definition of alright by Merriam-Webster

 

[kaz]

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

Strawman...

Also, not what I said.

It's exactly what you said, you said I want anarchy. You know well that I don't, how many times did you post in this thread?

What is a small government libertarian US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

That isn't an anarchist, dumb ass

I said you want Anarchy, that is correct. Your strawman is Anarchy or Marxism which was never posted, by anyone on this thread.

I just posted a link my view and it's not Anarchy, moron. Tell me Toxic, why do I insult him?

 

[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.

Yet you couldn't find judicial review in the Constitution. No one else can either. Do you know who actually "tasked" the SCOTUS with judicial review?

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.


Such a a shame for you, that you are wrong, and that the issue was debated even before the Constitution was ratified. They wouldn't have done so if it wasn't in there, which it was, and is.

Again, judicial review's not in there, Scoobie

Oh but it is, or it wouldn't have been debated during ratification. You lose, again.

 

[kaz]

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

Strawman...

Also, not what I said.

It's exactly what you said, you said I want anarchy. You know well that I don't, how many times did you post in this thread?

What is a small government libertarian US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

That isn't an anarchist, dumb ass

What you want is the same as a child in a 5th floor walk-up wanting a pony. Ain't gonna happen, you live in a fantasyland.

Whether that's true or not, it isn't anarchy, moron.

BTW, you know who else wanted what I want? The founding fathers. What you just read is virtually the Constitution

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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

Strawman...

Also, not what I said.

It's exactly what you said, you said I want anarchy. You know well that I don't, how many times did you post in this thread?

What is a small government libertarian US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

That isn't an anarchist, dumb ass

I said you want Anarchy, that is correct. Your strawman is Anarchy or Marxism which was never posted, by anyone on this thread.

I just posted a link my view and it's not Anarchy, moron. Tell me Toxic, why do I insult him?

Yes, I read your views. That doesn't change the fact that I said you want anarchy now does it?

And I live in the real world, not 230 years ago. What worked for them matters very little now. Now it's what works for us that maters. They, unlike you, said such a thing.

 

[kaz]

"alright" isn't a word, spell checker

And your standard keeps changing. Gays are natural because gay happens in nature. But when the only meat I eat is fish and seafood, suddenly other standards appear...

Yes it is, dumbass. And, humans are meat eaters, predators. Ignoring that means you are ignoring nature and the natural human diet which includes meat.

Exactly, with gays your standard for "natural" was that other animals do it.

With me your standard suddenly becomes humans, "humans are meat eaters."

That is a clear change in your standard. You went from what non-humans do to what humans do as the standard for natural.

ToxicMedia

So you claim to want to have a logical discussion rather than trade insults. I'm good with either, but I don't mix them. Well, why are you being silent on this? You are demonstrating some truth to that you want a logical discussion, but clearly you see his completely changed standard. Why the silence?

I have never changed my standard. Is it found it nature or not? Meat eaters? Yes. Omnivores? Yes? Homosexuals? Yes? Marriage? No. God? No.

Eating only fish and seafood and veggies? Yes!

 

[toxicmedia]

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...

I'm always struck by, but never amazed by, the passion those who oppose gay marriage display.

It seems to come from some kind of spiritual devotion, yet their arguments run for refuge in objectivity when confronted with the realities of how they affect the lives of gay people.

I know, because I grew up with my brother who was in the closet till he was 25, and displayed amazing strength after he came out. He's matured far beyond my futile hatred for people who judge gays, and has never needed me to fight his battles. As he pointed out..."you just want to fight people about me, for your own reasons". Once, long ago, he set me straight and told me that "what happens in my bedroom is no more worthy of discussion than what happens in yours, and I don't want to be defined by what happens behind the closed doors of my bedroom". He is right...besides what happens there...he is absolutely no different than me, not one tiny bit.

Where I live, gays have been out for a long time. (Northern California). So my defense of him is rather insulting at the end of the day.

Then there are people like Kaz, who I need to think are not bad people, or I just make myself crazy. But what he probably doesn't realize, is that for gay people, who maybe live in an area not quite so gay friendly...people who think the way he does, are truly the "wolves at the door" for gay people, and probably have no idea how horrible that is.

That is often true. In my case, I like to screw with the left and hold you to your own standards. You have a problem:

- You support progressive taxes and the death tax

- You want gay couples to get out of it

Why should I agree to let you out of your trap? I think taxes should be flat, no one should pay a tax for dying since we paid repeated taxes along the way. Parentage rights and responsibilities should be based on genes not paper. There is in fact nothing that government marriage solves for some citizens that couldn't be solved better for all citizens. Government should teat all it's citizens the same, and they don't either according to what the right wants or to what you want

I'm not concerned about the tax implications of allowing same sex marriage

I can't imagine we're talking about a significant amount of money

That isn't the point. The point is that the left want the progressive taxes and death tax, then you want to let your pets off of paying them.

The other financial point was how Democrats use that same argument. For example, on the government shutdown. That Obama was so incompetent he spent more shutting down government than operating it became an attack on Republicans for costing money. The Republicans wanted spending cuts, but they weren't allowed to cost government any money to get them. Leftists have endless contradictions, hypocrisies and double standards, and you don't get it when that's pointed out.

Just so you know, my actual view on gay government marriage is that as long as it's done Constitutionally through the legislature, then I don't care about it any more or less than any other government marriage

You want a Republican dominated House, and Senate to decide?

Do you expect me to believe your devotion to the Constitution weighs more heavily in your desire to see the Republican dominated congress make that decision...than the obvious fact that your side would decide the way you want?

If a constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage bans were to be created, then you'd have no problem?

If a constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage were to be created, how would that affect your position?

 

[kaz]

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

Yes, it does say that...

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution​

Yes, "under" the Constitution. That means the Constitution is the ruler. It does not mean they have authority over the Constitution to change the ruler