Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[Faun]

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.

So you can't find it, but you know it's there. So it's like your junk

It's in bold above. You lose, as usual.

"Under" the Constitution, not over the Constitution. They are to use the Constitution as a ruler. They don't get to define the ruler. That came from somewhere else. Do you know where it came from?

What part of, "all cases," don't you understand?

 

[kaz]

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?

I don't want the courts to decide what they want legislation to say because they are a far greater threat on far bigger issues than gay marriage.

At least as bad as the congress is, it's accountable to the people. Accountability even to the stupid is better than unaccountable. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely

I enjoy the fact that what you want has already been rejected by society.

Yes, you are enjoying the tyranny of the courts, I know. What happens if one day the monster you created starts ruling against you?

It does that often enough. That's the game we play. Grownups know this, but not mental children such as yourself.

Another subject you know nothing about, what grownups know. And again, brainless one, you don't know the difference between knowing what the courts do and agreeing with the courts. How stupid are you? So far, we have seen no limit to the depths

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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

Quibbling over quote marks?

That's an example of you seeking refuge.

Quibbling? The difference between what someone actually said and you putting words in their mouths is "quibbling" to you? That is pathetic. Tell me again you care about logical debate...

Logical debate with you cannot be had. You are incapable of such a thing.

How would you know?

Because for 1,000 posts I tested the theory. You are irrational and dishonest so no actual debate is possible.

 

[RKMBrown]

Equality before the law isn't gay, and you are the one with the agenda, that's losing...

Gays have equality, you want more. And yes, liberty is a losing agenda, you leftist parasites are winning. I can realize that and yet continue to advocate liberty. Boggles your mind, doesn't it?

How many gays have you killed in your life? Or do you just like beating the crap out of them with a baseball bat? Or are you just some weirdo that likes putting your jack boots on their necks?

Not wanting to give gays validation and tax breaks is the same as killing them and beating them with a baseball bat. Got it. And I said you have a stick up your ass. Called that one, didn't I?

And even then I have repeatedly said I don't really give a shit over other government marriage as long as it's done Constitutionally through the legislature.

And beyond that I've said it will happen eventually as the old geezers die off, the young overwhelmingly support gay marriage in both parties

Got it... you are not enough of a man to do anything about your hatred for gays except to put your jack boot on their necks while someone else is holding them down. But hey if someone forces you back into your closet you will just bitch and moan that you were forced to remove your jack boot by your betters.

OK. I guess with that giant lumber rammed up your ass that's how you hear it. I do have a three word process. Grab, pull, remove. It's wonderful, try it

irony: the guy with a stick up his ass over gays getting married says... get that stick out of your ass that you have over me having a stick up my ass.

 

[Faun]

You are truly retarded. Now you want to talk about marriage without talking about feelings.

We're talking about the law, dumb ass. How you feel isn't relevant in that context

You are fucking retarded. :cuckooc

We're talking about laws regarding marriage. You still don't understand that Supreme Court decision, do you?

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.”​

We are talking about marriage laws, idiot, not "marriage." They are not the same any more than driving laws are the same as driving

And you're actually stupid enough to think driving laws have nothing to do with driving.

They do, just like marriage laws pertain to marriage. Even worse for your lunacy, we're also talking about rights. Which in this case, also has to do with marriage and everything to do with feelings.

 

[Faun]

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

Quibbling over quote marks?

That's an example of you seeking refuge.

Quibbling? The difference between what someone actually said and you putting words in their mouths is "quibbling" to you? That is pathetic. Tell me again you care about logical debate...

Logical debate with you cannot be had. You are incapable of such a thing.

How would you know?

Because for 1,000 posts I tested the theory. You are irrational and dishonest so no actual debate is possible.

Spot on.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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?

I don't want the courts to decide what they want legislation to say because they are a far greater threat on far bigger issues than gay marriage.

At least as bad as the congress is, it's accountable to the people. Accountability even to the stupid is better than unaccountable. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely

I enjoy the fact that what you want has already been rejected by society.

Yes, you are enjoying the tyranny of the courts, I know. What happens if one day the monster you created starts ruling against you?

It does that often enough. That's the game we play. Grownups know this, but not mental children such as yourself.

Another subject you know nothing about, what grownups know. And again, brainless one, you don't know the difference between knowing what the courts do and agreeing with the courts. How stupid are you? So far, we have seen no limit to the depths

I know what the courts do, and I agree with it if not always with their decisions. You lose, yet again.

 

[kaz]

Depends on how you define natural.

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

BTW, you do love Meriams, don't you?

WTF is "Meriams," dumbfuck?

Oh, that's funny. You really don't get anything. I'll dumb it down for you. I was referring to the dictionary Webster and the chick who tried to alibi Obama when he claimed to have been born in Kenya. Life must suck watching every reference go over your head. You didn't get that? Wow...

 

[kaz]

Again, judicial review's not in there, Scoobie

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

So you can't find it, but you know it's there. So it's like your junk

It's in bold above. You lose, as usual.

"Under" the Constitution, not over the Constitution. They are to use the Constitution as a ruler. They don't get to define the ruler. That came from somewhere else. Do you know where it came from?

What part of, "all cases," don't you understand?

Non-sequitur

 

[Faun]

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?

I don't want the courts to decide what they want legislation to say because they are a far greater threat on far bigger issues than gay marriage.

At least as bad as the congress is, it's accountable to the people. Accountability even to the stupid is better than unaccountable. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely

I enjoy the fact that what you want has already been rejected by society.

Yes, you are enjoying the tyranny of the courts, I know. What happens if one day the monster you created starts ruling against you?

There's no tyranny; only your ignorance.

 

[kaz]

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

Quibbling over quote marks?

That's an example of you seeking refuge.

Quibbling? The difference between what someone actually said and you putting words in their mouths is "quibbling" to you? That is pathetic. Tell me again you care about logical debate...

Logical debate with you cannot be had. You are incapable of such a thing.

How would you know?

Because for 1,000 posts I tested the theory. You are irrational and dishonest so no actual debate is possible.

You tested my ability to debate logically with irrational posts that follow no logical thread, endless contradictions and pompous sarcastic comments? That doesn't seem like much of a test. How do you test if your hamster is hungry, do you put it in the toaster?

 

[kaz]

Gays have equality, you want more. And yes, liberty is a losing agenda, you leftist parasites are winning. I can realize that and yet continue to advocate liberty. Boggles your mind, doesn't it?

How many gays have you killed in your life? Or do you just like beating the crap out of them with a baseball bat? Or are you just some weirdo that likes putting your jack boots on their necks?

Not wanting to give gays validation and tax breaks is the same as killing them and beating them with a baseball bat. Got it. And I said you have a stick up your ass. Called that one, didn't I?

And even then I have repeatedly said I don't really give a shit over other government marriage as long as it's done Constitutionally through the legislature.

And beyond that I've said it will happen eventually as the old geezers die off, the young overwhelmingly support gay marriage in both parties

Got it... you are not enough of a man to do anything about your hatred for gays except to put your jack boot on their necks while someone else is holding them down. But hey if someone forces you back into your closet you will just bitch and moan that you were forced to remove your jack boot by your betters.

OK. I guess with that giant lumber rammed up your ass that's how you hear it. I do have a three word process. Grab, pull, remove. It's wonderful, try it

irony: the guy with a stick up his ass over gays getting married says... get that stick out of your ass that you have over me having a stick up my ass.

If you say so. I say you have a stick up your ass because of ranting, angry posts. You say I do because I disagree with you. You believe whatever floats your boat

 

[Faun]

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

BTW, you do love Meriams, don't you?

WTF is "Meriams," dumbfuck?

Oh, that's funny. You really don't get anything. I'll dumb it down for you. I was referring to the dictionary Webster and the chick who tried to alibi Obama when he claimed to have been born in Kenya. Life must suck watching every reference go over your head. You didn't get that? Wow...

Why on Earth would I be thinking of Meriam Goderich in a thread which has absolutely nothing to do with her? Exactly how far into the abyss does your damaged mind wander?

 

[kaz]

You are truly retarded. Now you want to talk about marriage without talking about feelings.

We're talking about the law, dumb ass. How you feel isn't relevant in that context

You are fucking retarded. :cuckooc

We're talking about laws regarding marriage. You still don't understand that Supreme Court decision, do you?

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.”​

We are talking about marriage laws, idiot, not "marriage." They are not the same any more than driving laws are the same as driving

And you're actually stupid enough to thing driving laws have nothing to do with driving.

Strawman

They do, just like marriage laws pertain to marriage. Even worse for your lunacy, we're also talking about rights. Which in this case, also has to do with marriage and everything to do with feelings.

Feelings have nothing to do with court cases

 

[kaz]

I don't want the courts to decide what they want legislation to say because they are a far greater threat on far bigger issues than gay marriage.

At least as bad as the congress is, it's accountable to the people. Accountability even to the stupid is better than unaccountable. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely

I enjoy the fact that what you want has already been rejected by society.

Yes, you are enjoying the tyranny of the courts, I know. What happens if one day the monster you created starts ruling against you?

It does that often enough. That's the game we play. Grownups know this, but not mental children such as yourself.

Another subject you know nothing about, what grownups know. And again, brainless one, you don't know the difference between knowing what the courts do and agreeing with the courts. How stupid are you? So far, we have seen no limit to the depths

I know what the courts do, and I agree with it if not always with their decisions. You lose, yet again.

How is that a loss for me over anything I said?

 

[Faun]

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

So you can't find it, but you know it's there. So it's like your junk

It's in bold above. You lose, as usual.

"Under" the Constitution, not over the Constitution. They are to use the Constitution as a ruler. They don't get to define the ruler. That came from somewhere else. Do you know where it came from?

What part of, "all cases," don't you understand?

Non-sequitur

Your evasion is again duly noted.

 

[kaz]

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?

I don't want the courts to decide what they want legislation to say because they are a far greater threat on far bigger issues than gay marriage.

At least as bad as the congress is, it's accountable to the people. Accountability even to the stupid is better than unaccountable. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely

I enjoy the fact that what you want has already been rejected by society.

Yes, you are enjoying the tyranny of the courts, I know. What happens if one day the monster you created starts ruling against you?

There's no tyranny; only your ignorance.

There is just your sycophancy

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Quibbling over quote marks?

That's an example of you seeking refuge.

Quibbling? The difference between what someone actually said and you putting words in their mouths is "quibbling" to you? That is pathetic. Tell me again you care about logical debate...

Logical debate with you cannot be had. You are incapable of such a thing.

How would you know?

Because for 1,000 posts I tested the theory. You are irrational and dishonest so no actual debate is possible.

You tested my ability to debate logically with irrational posts that follow no logical thread, endless contradictions and pompous sarcastic comments? That doesn't seem like much of a test. How do you test if your hamster is hungry, do you put it in the toaster?

You're a loon Kas, sorry. I'll give you a chance though, when humans used to commonly kill infants they couldn't feed, was that rational or not?

That's a yes or no question BTW.

 

[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...

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

Alright Definition of alright by Merriam-Webster

BTW, you do love Meriams, don't you?

WTF is "Meriams," dumbfuck?

Oh, that's funny. You really don't get anything. I'll dumb it down for you. I was referring to the dictionary Webster and the chick who tried to alibi Obama when he claimed to have been born in Kenya. Life must suck watching every reference go over your head. You didn't get that? Wow...

Why on Earth would I be thinking of Meriam Goderich in a thread which has absolutely nothing to do with her? Exactly how far I to the abyss does your damaged mind wander?

I said you love Meriams, LOL. Yeah, that was subtle...

 

[kaz]

Quibbling? The difference between what someone actually said and you putting words in their mouths is "quibbling" to you? That is pathetic. Tell me again you care about logical debate...

Logical debate with you cannot be had. You are incapable of such a thing.

How would you know?

Because for 1,000 posts I tested the theory. You are irrational and dishonest so no actual debate is possible.

You tested my ability to debate logically with irrational posts that follow no logical thread, endless contradictions and pompous sarcastic comments? That doesn't seem like much of a test. How do you test if your hamster is hungry, do you put it in the toaster?

You're a loon Kas, sorry. I'll give you a chance though, when humans used to commonly kill infants they couldn't feed, was that rational or not?

That's a yes or no question BTW.

You're going to have to give me some context for that question, what are you talking about?