Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[kaz]

As for marrying no one... there is no law against naming yourself no one, but it's been done before... my name is no man...

The point is that if someone wants to marry no one, they are marrying who they want and they should be able to get marriage perks. Since you are saying government has no say over who you marry. Skylar loves the sound of his own voice, why should he not get marriage perks for that? Why do you get shit from government Skylar and his own voice can't get when you have a "contract" for marriage?

Calling government marriage a "contract" is pretty preposterous, BTW. Government marriage is a government program. It's not defined by the participants and they can't change it, but government can change it without their consent. It's a bastardization of the word "contract." And again why does a "contract" entitle them to anything from government? It's a government program, nothing more

Holyfuckingshit!

Not getting married is getting married in your alternate universe?? Is not going to the movies going to the movies? Is not driving a car driving a car?

That made no sense. I like the clown antics though, you do ride in the car with the clown car party

 

[kaz]

You can keep sucking his cock like you are if that's what makes you happy, but at least wipe your chin.

OMG, after the endless 100 page cluster fuck with you, syriusly, skylar, seawytch, bodedica you would say this? I mean that's even clown for a clown, bro

Really? "OMG??"

You really are the wife in your marriage. Hell, you sound like a 4 year old girl watching the power puff girls.

And your, I know you are but what am I," retort also expresses your 4 year old mentality.

You dipshits have had an endless cluster fuck, Syriously disappeared for it, he kept trying to circle jerk seawytch and kept splattering cum on my shoes. Then suddenly you're shocked that an anarchist and a minarchist are in agreement? After the love notes between you liberals?

It's just comic, but comedy is your subject as you're a clown

 

[Faun]

No, that's not what I said. Why lie? What I said was...

"Driving without a license is illegal. Reproducing without being married is not."​

... pointing out how retarded you are for drawing an analogy between driving, which requires a license; and procreation, which does not.

Because they have access to the sport. How many times do you need to be told that until you finally understand?

Gays have "access" to marriage. Gay men can marry any female they want to marry.

Argument tried and failed. They tried to tell Mildred Loving she could marry any black man and it wasn't discrimination because the same laws applied to all races equally.

Gay men can marry another man in a majority of the state's...37 at last count.

That's the argument Faun was making, so tell him it failed. Furthermore the Loving case had nothing to do with argument of "separate but equal."

Wrong again, that's nor my argument. Remember? You're too stupid to understand my argument. And now we see that stems from your absolutely mind-fucking belief that marriage is not a fundamental right.

Hey, recall your argument that marriage is an unalienable right and then your other argument that marriage is not an unalienable right?

That's how most of your arguments go.

What the hell is an "unalienable right?"

And I said gays are being denied their inalienable rights by being denied the right to marry. That is to say, their inalienable right to pursue happiness is being denied by their right to get married.

Savvy?

I'm not saying marriage is an inalienable right.

 

[kaz]

The funny part is that you actually believe you're posting good arguments.

Here's a clue for you: learn what the word "analogy" means. Your claim is that the driver's license isn't a good analogy because it's a driver's license and not a marriage license.

In short, your a moron. It must hurt to be as stupid as you.

Umm, no ... what made it a failed analogy was your bizarre comparison of driving a car with procreation. A marriage licence legalizes marriage, not procreation. Whereas a drivers license legalizes driving.

That would be relevant if it had to do with how he used the analogy, but he didn't. You said people procreate without a license, he said people drive without a license too. You have to look at how the analogy is used, Opie the Clown

Which was the analogy he offered in response to me pointing out that a marriage license is not required to procreate. His analogy was a failure from before he even hit [post reply].

Yes, it was an analogy, and he told you how he was using that analogy. You picked something that wasn't how he was using the analogy, so what you said was a truism. Sadly multiple words are in this conversation you don't know and aren't going to look up

This is the point where you are free to engage in wholesale verbal abuse. It's a total waste of time to continue arguing the point with him. He's like a corpse that insists it isn't dead even though it doesn't have a pulse and its body is at room temperature.

I agree, but it does help with trying to learn to explain things to stupid people. In reality that's why I do insult liberals all the time though, it's impossible to get content back, they just don't process. You do seriously come up with some good arguments, though everyone goes over their heads

 

[kaz]

Gays have "access" to marriage. Gay men can marry any female they want to marry.

Argument tried and failed. They tried to tell Mildred Loving she could marry any black man and it wasn't discrimination because the same laws applied to all races equally.

Gay men can marry another man in a majority of the state's...37 at last count.

That's the argument Faun was making, so tell him it failed. Furthermore the Loving case had nothing to do with argument of "separate but equal."

Wrong again, that's nor my argument. Remember? You're too stupid to understand my argument. And now we see that stems from your absolutely mind-fucking belief that marriage is not a fundamental right.

Hey, recall your argument that marriage is an unalienable right and then your other argument that marriage is not an unalienable right?

That's how most of your arguments go.

What the hell is an "unalienable right?"

And I said gays are being denied their inalienable rights by being denied the right to marry. That is to say, their inalienable right to pursue happiness is being denied by their right to get married.

Savvy?

I'm not saying marriage is an inalienable right.

You stupid as shit dipshit mother fucker, I keep pointing out to you that the right to "pursue happiness" is in the Declaration of Independence. And even then they were referring to government not stopping you, they did not mean government should do it for you. What legal right do we get in our laws from the Declaration of Independence?

It also said our rights come from our creator, so are we a theocracy?

 

[Seawytch]

You can keep sucking his cock like you are if that's what makes you happy, but at least wipe your chin.

OMG, after the endless 100 page cluster fuck with you, syriusly, skylar, seawytch, bodedica you would say this? I mean that's even clown for a clown, bro

Really? "OMG??"

You really are the wife in your marriage. Hell, you sound like a 4 year old girl watching the power puff girls.

And your, I know you are but what am I," retort also expresses your 4 year old mentality.

You dipshits have had an endless cluster fuck, Syriously disappeared for it, he kept trying to circle jerk seawytch and kept splattering cum on my shoes. Then suddenly you're shocked that an anarchist and a minarchist are in agreement? After the love notes between you liberals?

It's just comic, but comedy is your subject as you're a clown

Yes, your thread is comedic that's for sure. Watching you justify subsidizing non productive straight marriages while wanting to deny gay couples, productive or not, is highly amusing...especially when you tried to tie it to Republican hostage taking and the shutting down of the government. Funny stuff indeed. Coo coo banana bird, but funny.

 

[Faun]

The funny part is that you actually believe you're posting good arguments.

Here's a clue for you: learn what the word "analogy" means. Your claim is that the driver's license isn't a good analogy because it's a driver's license and not a marriage license.

In short, your a moron. It must hurt to be as stupid as you.

Umm, no ... what made it a failed analogy was your bizarre comparison of driving a car with procreation. A marriage licence legalizes marriage, not procreation. Whereas a drivers license legalizes driving.

That would be relevant if it had to do with how he used the analogy, but he didn't. You said people procreate without a license, he said people drive without a license too. You have to look at how the analogy is used, Opie the Clown

Which was the analogy he offered in response to me pointing out that a marriage license is not required to procreate. His analogy was a failure from before he even hit [post reply].

Yes, it was an analogy, and he told you how he was using that analogy. You picked something that wasn't how he was using the analogy, so what you said was a truism. Sadly multiple words are in this conversation you don't know and aren't going to look up

This is the point where you are free to engage in wholesale verbal abuse. It's a total waste of time to continue arguing the point with him. He's like a corpse that insists it isn't dead even though it doesn't have a pulse and its body is at room temperature.

Hisses the abject imbecile who thinks marriage is not a fundamental right.

 

[kaz]

You can keep sucking his cock like you are if that's what makes you happy, but at least wipe your chin.

OMG, after the endless 100 page cluster fuck with you, syriusly, skylar, seawytch, bodedica you would say this? I mean that's even clown for a clown, bro

Really? "OMG??"

You really are the wife in your marriage. Hell, you sound like a 4 year old girl watching the power puff girls.

And your, I know you are but what am I," retort also expresses your 4 year old mentality.

You dipshits have had an endless cluster fuck, Syriously disappeared for it, he kept trying to circle jerk seawytch and kept splattering cum on my shoes. Then suddenly you're shocked that an anarchist and a minarchist are in agreement? After the love notes between you liberals?

It's just comic, but comedy is your subject as you're a clown

Yes, your thread is comedic that's for sure.

You do love playground arguments! I'd say they're your forte, but how can children's arguments be a skill exactly?

Watching you justify subsidizing non productive straight marriages ...

Strawman, I never did that. Sorry Charlie, but only good tasting tuna get to be Sunkist

while wanting to deny gay couples, productive or not, is highly amusing...especially when you tried to tie it to Republican hostage taking and the shutting down of the government. Funny stuff indeed. Coo coo banana bird, but funny.

Wrong, gay couples can get child tax breaks, your liberal amigos even pointed that out. It's only the gay mating I don't want to pay for. And I don't want to pay for straight mating either.

But I do like your argument. I oppose progressive taxes, and I oppose government marriage. So I have to support letting liberal special interest groups out of progressive taxes which I oppose by giving them government marriage which I oppose or I'm a hypocrite.

Yes, you'll be here until Thursday, come see your show...

 

[kaz]

Umm, no ... what made it a failed analogy was your bizarre comparison of driving a car with procreation. A marriage licence legalizes marriage, not procreation. Whereas a drivers license legalizes driving.

That would be relevant if it had to do with how he used the analogy, but he didn't. You said people procreate without a license, he said people drive without a license too. You have to look at how the analogy is used, Opie the Clown

Which was the analogy he offered in response to me pointing out that a marriage license is not required to procreate. His analogy was a failure from before he even hit [post reply].

Yes, it was an analogy, and he told you how he was using that analogy. You picked something that wasn't how he was using the analogy, so what you said was a truism. Sadly multiple words are in this conversation you don't know and aren't going to look up

This is the point where you are free to engage in wholesale verbal abuse. It's a total waste of time to continue arguing the point with him. He's like a corpse that insists it isn't dead even though it doesn't have a pulse and its body is at room temperature.

Hisses the abject imbecile who thinks marriage is not a fundamental right.

You have the right to shack up and be left alone, to say you have a "fundamental right" to get paper and perks from other people for shacking up is just retarded, it's a clown argument, bro

 

[Faun]

Argument tried and failed. They tried to tell Mildred Loving she could marry any black man and it wasn't discrimination because the same laws applied to all races equally.

Gay men can marry another man in a majority of the state's...37 at last count.

That's the argument Faun was making, so tell him it failed. Furthermore the Loving case had nothing to do with argument of "separate but equal."

Wrong again, that's nor my argument. Remember? You're too stupid to understand my argument. And now we see that stems from your absolutely mind-fucking belief that marriage is not a fundamental right.

Hey, recall your argument that marriage is an unalienable right and then your other argument that marriage is not an unalienable right?

That's how most of your arguments go.

What the hell is an "unalienable right?"

And I said gays are being denied their inalienable rights by being denied the right to marry. That is to say, their inalienable right to pursue happiness is being denied by their right to get married.

Savvy?

I'm not saying marriage is an inalienable right.

You stupid as shit dipshit mother fucker, I keep pointing out to you that the right to "pursue happiness" is in the Declaration of Independence. And even then they were referring to government not stopping you, they did not mean government should do it for you. What legal right do we get in our laws from the Declaration of Independence?

It also said our rights come from our creator, so are we a theocracy?

No, we are not a theocracy. You should know that.
Yes or no ... the pursuit of happiness is an inalienable right?

 

[kaz]

That's the argument Faun was making, so tell him it failed. Furthermore the Loving case had nothing to do with argument of "separate but equal."

Wrong again, that's nor my argument. Remember? You're too stupid to understand my argument. And now we see that stems from your absolutely mind-fucking belief that marriage is not a fundamental right.

Hey, recall your argument that marriage is an unalienable right and then your other argument that marriage is not an unalienable right?

That's how most of your arguments go.

What the hell is an "unalienable right?"

And I said gays are being denied their inalienable rights by being denied the right to marry. That is to say, their inalienable right to pursue happiness is being denied by their right to get married.

Savvy?

I'm not saying marriage is an inalienable right.

You stupid as shit dipshit mother fucker, I keep pointing out to you that the right to "pursue happiness" is in the Declaration of Independence. And even then they were referring to government not stopping you, they did not mean government should do it for you. What legal right do we get in our laws from the Declaration of Independence?

It also said our rights come from our creator, so are we a theocracy?

No, we are not a theocracy. You should know that.
Yes or no ... the pursuit of happiness is an inalienable right?

Answer the question, how is the Declaration of Independence a source of rights in our country?

And if it is, how are we not a theocracy since it says our rights are endowed by our creator?

You have to answer my question before you ask yours. I will answer yours as soon as you do

 

[bripat9643]

Umm, no ... what made it a failed analogy was your bizarre comparison of driving a car with procreation. A marriage licence legalizes marriage, not procreation. Whereas a drivers license legalizes driving.

That would be relevant if it had to do with how he used the analogy, but he didn't. You said people procreate without a license, he said people drive without a license too. You have to look at how the analogy is used, Opie the Clown

Which was the analogy he offered in response to me pointing out that a marriage license is not required to procreate. His analogy was a failure from before he even hit [post reply].

Yes, it was an analogy, and he told you how he was using that analogy. You picked something that wasn't how he was using the analogy, so what you said was a truism. Sadly multiple words are in this conversation you don't know and aren't going to look up

This is the point where you are free to engage in wholesale verbal abuse. It's a total waste of time to continue arguing the point with him. He's like a corpse that insists it isn't dead even though it doesn't have a pulse and its body is at room temperature.

I agree, but it does help with trying to learn to explain things to stupid people. In reality that's why I do insult liberals all the time though, it's impossible to get content back, they just don't process. You do seriously come up with some good arguments, though everyone goes over their heads

When you're an anarchist you learn to come up with good arguments because people are so flabbergasted by the idea.

 

[bripat9643]

That's the argument Faun was making, so tell him it failed. Furthermore the Loving case had nothing to do with argument of "separate but equal."

Wrong again, that's nor my argument. Remember? You're too stupid to understand my argument. And now we see that stems from your absolutely mind-fucking belief that marriage is not a fundamental right.

Hey, recall your argument that marriage is an unalienable right and then your other argument that marriage is not an unalienable right?

That's how most of your arguments go.

What the hell is an "unalienable right?"

And I said gays are being denied their inalienable rights by being denied the right to marry. That is to say, their inalienable right to pursue happiness is being denied by their right to get married.

Savvy?

I'm not saying marriage is an inalienable right.

You stupid as shit dipshit mother fucker, I keep pointing out to you that the right to "pursue happiness" is in the Declaration of Independence. And even then they were referring to government not stopping you, they did not mean government should do it for you. What legal right do we get in our laws from the Declaration of Independence?

It also said our rights come from our creator, so are we a theocracy?

No, we are not a theocracy. You should know that.
Yes or no ... the pursuit of happiness is an inalienable right?

Yes, the pursuit of happiness is an inalienable right. Happiness itself, however, is not. Neither a marriage license nor a driver's license is mandated by that right.

 

[bripat9643]

You can keep sucking his cock like you are if that's what makes you happy, but at least wipe your chin.

OMG, after the endless 100 page cluster fuck with you, syriusly, skylar, seawytch, bodedica you would say this? I mean that's even clown for a clown, bro

Really? "OMG??"

You really are the wife in your marriage. Hell, you sound like a 4 year old girl watching the power puff girls.

And your, I know you are but what am I," retort also expresses your 4 year old mentality.

You dipshits have had an endless cluster fuck, Syriously disappeared for it, he kept trying to circle jerk seawytch and kept splattering cum on my shoes. Then suddenly you're shocked that an anarchist and a minarchist are in agreement? After the love notes between you liberals?

It's just comic, but comedy is your subject as you're a clown

Yes, your thread is comedic that's for sure. Watching you justify subsidizing non productive straight marriages while wanting to deny gay couples, productive or not, is highly amusing...especially when you tried to tie it to Republican hostage taking and the shutting down of the government. Funny stuff indeed. Coo coo banana bird, but funny.

Subsidizing marriage is practically the whole point of marriage laws in this country. It's done to facilitate reproduction of healthy and well adjusted offspring. There's no point in subsidizing queer marriages.

 

[Faun]

As for marrying no one... there is no law against naming yourself no one, but it's been done before... my name is no man...

The point is that if someone wants to marry no one, they are marrying who they want and they should be able to get marriage perks. Since you are saying government has no say over who you marry. Skylar loves the sound of his own voice, why should he not get marriage perks for that? Why do you get shit from government Skylar and his own voice can't get when you have a "contract" for marriage?

Calling government marriage a "contract" is pretty preposterous, BTW. Government marriage is a government program. It's not defined by the participants and they can't change it, but government can change it without their consent. It's a bastardization of the word "contract." And again why does a "contract" entitle them to anything from government? It's a government program, nothing more

Holyfuckingshit!

Not getting married is getting married in your alternate universe?? Is not going to the movies going to the movies? Is not driving a car driving a car?

That made no sense. I like the clown antics though, you do ride in the car with the clown car party

Of course it made no sense -- I repeated back your own words, in your twisted world, marrying no one is getting married. It's refreshing to see that makes no sense to you too.

 

[kaz]

That would be relevant if it had to do with how he used the analogy, but he didn't. You said people procreate without a license, he said people drive without a license too. You have to look at how the analogy is used, Opie the Clown

Which was the analogy he offered in response to me pointing out that a marriage license is not required to procreate. His analogy was a failure from before he even hit [post reply].

Yes, it was an analogy, and he told you how he was using that analogy. You picked something that wasn't how he was using the analogy, so what you said was a truism. Sadly multiple words are in this conversation you don't know and aren't going to look up

This is the point where you are free to engage in wholesale verbal abuse. It's a total waste of time to continue arguing the point with him. He's like a corpse that insists it isn't dead even though it doesn't have a pulse and its body is at room temperature.

I agree, but it does help with trying to learn to explain things to stupid people. In reality that's why I do insult liberals all the time though, it's impossible to get content back, they just don't process. You do seriously come up with some good arguments, though everyone goes over their heads

When you're an anarchist you learn to come up with good arguments because people are so flabbergasted by the idea.

You actually have an advantage over me. Liberals can't process being a minarchist, so I can't get past their question of whether I'm a Republican or an anarchist, I haven't been able to get them to process small government, not no government. Liberals as you know process only extremes

 

[bripat9643]

Which was the analogy he offered in response to me pointing out that a marriage license is not required to procreate. His analogy was a failure from before he even hit [post reply].

Yes, it was an analogy, and he told you how he was using that analogy. You picked something that wasn't how he was using the analogy, so what you said was a truism. Sadly multiple words are in this conversation you don't know and aren't going to look up

This is the point where you are free to engage in wholesale verbal abuse. It's a total waste of time to continue arguing the point with him. He's like a corpse that insists it isn't dead even though it doesn't have a pulse and its body is at room temperature.

I agree, but it does help with trying to learn to explain things to stupid people. In reality that's why I do insult liberals all the time though, it's impossible to get content back, they just don't process. You do seriously come up with some good arguments, though everyone goes over their heads

When you're an anarchist you learn to come up with good arguments because people are so flabbergasted by the idea.

You actually have an advantage over me. Liberals can't process being a minarchist, so I can't get past their question of whether I'm a Republican or an anarchist, I haven't been able to get them to process small government, not no government. Liberals as you know process only extremes

They always accuse me of being an anarchist. When I admit I am, they don't know what to say. That's usually when the swearing starts.

 

[Faun]

You can keep sucking his cock like you are if that's what makes you happy, but at least wipe your chin.

OMG, after the endless 100 page cluster fuck with you, syriusly, skylar, seawytch, bodedica you would say this? I mean that's even clown for a clown, bro

Really? "OMG??"

You really are the wife in your marriage. Hell, you sound like a 4 year old girl watching the power puff girls.

And your, I know you are but what am I," retort also expresses your 4 year old mentality.

You dipshits have had an endless cluster fuck, Syriously disappeared for it, he kept trying to circle jerk seawytch and kept splattering cum on my shoes. Then suddenly you're shocked that an anarchist and a minarchist are in agreement? After the love notes between you liberals?

It's just comic, but comedy is your subject as you're a clown

I need not repeat my reply again since it still applies.

 

[kaz]

Wrong again, that's nor my argument. Remember? You're too stupid to understand my argument. And now we see that stems from your absolutely mind-fucking belief that marriage is not a fundamental right.

Hey, recall your argument that marriage is an unalienable right and then your other argument that marriage is not an unalienable right?

That's how most of your arguments go.

What the hell is an "unalienable right?"

And I said gays are being denied their inalienable rights by being denied the right to marry. That is to say, their inalienable right to pursue happiness is being denied by their right to get married.

Savvy?

I'm not saying marriage is an inalienable right.

You stupid as shit dipshit mother fucker, I keep pointing out to you that the right to "pursue happiness" is in the Declaration of Independence. And even then they were referring to government not stopping you, they did not mean government should do it for you. What legal right do we get in our laws from the Declaration of Independence?

It also said our rights come from our creator, so are we a theocracy?

No, we are not a theocracy. You should know that.
Yes or no ... the pursuit of happiness is an inalienable right?

Yes, the pursuit of happiness is an inalienable right. Happiness itself, however, is not. Neither a marriage license nor a driver's license is mandated by that right.

I agree, I was asking a more narrow question since he's making a legal argument we have that right. I'm asking where in the law that is a right since he keeps stating it's a legal right. Though he doesn't grasp that government is restricted from infringing on that right and he thinks government has to provide it.

I think the Constitution in legal terms puts it better, the right to life, liberty and property. Pursuit of happiness is more abstract, perfect for a Declaration, not so much for a Constitution, and requiring government to follow the due process of law to infringe on our life, liberty or property protects that right

 

[kaz]

As for marrying no one... there is no law against naming yourself no one, but it's been done before... my name is no man...

The point is that if someone wants to marry no one, they are marrying who they want and they should be able to get marriage perks. Since you are saying government has no say over who you marry. Skylar loves the sound of his own voice, why should he not get marriage perks for that? Why do you get shit from government Skylar and his own voice can't get when you have a "contract" for marriage?

Calling government marriage a "contract" is pretty preposterous, BTW. Government marriage is a government program. It's not defined by the participants and they can't change it, but government can change it without their consent. It's a bastardization of the word "contract." And again why does a "contract" entitle them to anything from government? It's a government program, nothing more

Holyfuckingshit!

Not getting married is getting married in your alternate universe?? Is not going to the movies going to the movies? Is not driving a car driving a car?

That made no sense. I like the clown antics though, you do ride in the car with the clown car party

Of course it made no sense -- I repeated back your own words, in your twisted world, marrying no one is getting married. It's refreshing to see that makes no sense to you too.

You repeated my words, but you mangled them and completely changed the meaning to gibberish