Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[toxicmedia]

Do yourself a favor, and your argument will improve 1000%...

Don't pretend to be objective

How did you enter the threat today? What a simp

Did you mean enter the thread?

If so, I entered the thread today watching two other posters best you, and you were on the ropes. I noticed how frazzled you were.

 

[toxicmedia]

It's only tyranny when your side loses.

Actually, if states could govern their own affairs instead of one man in the Oval Office deciding things it would not be tyranny. Instead, it would be like the Founders designed it to be.

The Civil War and the 14th Amendment changed that forever.

Trouble is, no one gives a damn about the Constitution anymore.

Really all we have to do is get someone in there to write Executive Orders. You know, just like Kennedy did to get rid of the Fed before traveling to Dallas...........only with bullet proof glass this time

You think so, but I doubt that many much agree with you.

You are free to disagree with me.

Unlike my Prog counterparts, you are free to disagree. I don't need to pass laws to restrict your speech nor do I need the power of the press to try and sway your opinions, nor do I need to take over government and shove my views on others

What are you talking about?

You remind me of Sarah Palin, you just start stringing together random unoriginal talking points, waiting for some clue about when sounds like a good time to stop

 

[danielpalos]

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's only tyranny when your side loses.

Bull. For example, I'm pro-choice and anti-death penalty, but I cringe at every supreme court ruling that undercuts state rights. Roe v. Wade is a Constitutional abomination. Some of us care about the rule of law. Sadly, that doesn't include you. Undercutting the rule of law is far more dangerous to our liberty than any transactional victory. People like you that don't recognize that are destroying us. Sadly there are way too many of you who just want to win

The right doesn't seem to have a problem with undercutting States' rights; especially regarding gun control and drug laws

 

[NYcarbineer]

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's only tyranny when your side loses.

Bull. For example, I'm pro-choice and anti-death penalty, but I cringe at every supreme court ruling that undercuts state rights. Roe v. Wade is a Constitutional abomination. Some of us care about the rule of law. Sadly, that doesn't include you. Undercutting the rule of law is far more dangerous to our liberty than any transactional victory. People like you that don't recognize that are destroying us. Sadly there are way too many of you who just want to win

There are no fetal rights in the Constitution.

 

[danielpalos]

There can be no abortion with homosexual marriage; why does the right have a problem with it?

 

[bodecea]

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's only tyranny when your side loses.

Actually, if states could govern their own affairs instead of one man in the Oval Office deciding things it would not be tyranny. Instead, it would be like the Founders designed it to be.

Good thing that's not what is happening, isn't it?

 

[kaz]

Admit it, you like me, you really really like me

This is hilarious. You came into the thread making it sound like you wanted a real discussion. I gave you every chance to prove that, and you proved you didn't, it was a lie. Fine, you're a liberal. That's what you do.

But this is what you came away with? That is un fucking believably funny. This is earth, calling toxicmedia's ego. You can stare at yourself in the mirror for hours, can't you?

 

[kaz]

I don't care how outraged you are that the Supreme Court won't allow public schools to have separate schools for blacks and whites

Pull down your dress, Darlene, your twat is showing. You sure showed me up as the insulter, didn't you? LOL, what a stupid bitch you are

 

[kaz]

Do yourself a favor, and your argument will improve 1000%...

Don't pretend to be objective

How did you enter the threat today? What a simp

Did you mean enter the thread?

If so, I entered the thread today watching two other posters best you, and you were on the ropes. I noticed how frazzled you were.

Ouch! Nailed me on a spelling check. Wow that stings, you are the rhetoric master, I bow to you

 

[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's only tyranny when your side loses.

Bull. For example, I'm pro-choice and anti-death penalty, but I cringe at every supreme court ruling that undercuts state rights. Roe v. Wade is a Constitutional abomination. Some of us care about the rule of law. Sadly, that doesn't include you. Undercutting the rule of law is far more dangerous to our liberty than any transactional victory. People like you that don't recognize that are destroying us. Sadly there are way too many of you who just want to win

The right doesn't seem to have a problem with undercutting States' rights; especially regarding gun control and drug laws

No, they don't. That's why I'm a ... wait for it ... libertarian. Does the obvious eventually dawn on Canadians, or not really?

 

[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's only tyranny when your side loses.

Bull. For example, I'm pro-choice and anti-death penalty, but I cringe at every supreme court ruling that undercuts state rights. Roe v. Wade is a Constitutional abomination. Some of us care about the rule of law. Sadly, that doesn't include you. Undercutting the rule of law is far more dangerous to our liberty than any transactional victory. People like you that don't recognize that are destroying us. Sadly there are way too many of you who just want to win

There are no fetal rights in the Constitution.

You got anything that contradicts what I said or you going with agreeing with me and just making it sound like you don't?

You should have worked harder at your reading skills in school when you had the chance

 

[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's only tyranny when your side loses.

Actually, if states could govern their own affairs instead of one man in the Oval Office deciding things it would not be tyranny. Instead, it would be like the Founders designed it to be.

Good thing that's not what is happening, isn't it?

True, he has a whole party helping him do it. Well, except the executive orders that is

 

[Syriusly]

This entire thread is just Kaz's whine about homosexuals.

To recap:

Kaz is married and gets the marriage bennies. He wants to deny them to couples if they cannot reproduce together- but only gay couples.

Kaz has his bennies and wants to gay couples to pay for his bennies, and wants to deny those gay couples his bennies.

Even more so, since Kaz claims that marriage is to encourage child rearing among couples- those bennies are given to every childless straight couple- but he wants to deny them to every gay couple raising children.

Yes- the gay couple who adopts 5 kids abandoned by their straight biological parents- Kaz thinks that marriage bennies (according to Kaz to encourage procreation) should be denied to that couple.

But thinks that any childless straight couple should get them.

 

[toxicmedia]

Admit it, you like me, you really really like me

This is hilarious. You came into the thread making it sound like you wanted a real discussion. I gave you every chance to prove that, and you proved you didn't, it was a lie. Fine, you're a liberal. That's what you do.

But this is what you came away with? That is un fucking believably funny. This is earth, calling toxicmedia's ego. You can stare at yourself in the mirror for hours, can't you?

Wow, the Madonna reference was lost on you huh?

 

[toxicmedia]

I don't care how outraged you are that the Supreme Court won't allow public schools to have separate schools for blacks and whites

Pull down your dress, Darlene, your twat is showing. You sure showed me up as the insulter, didn't you? LOL, what a stupid bitch you are

Who is Darlene?

And I only wish I had a twat, I'd never leave the house

 

[toxicmedia]

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's only tyranny when your side loses.

Bull. For example, I'm pro-choice and anti-death penalty, but I cringe at every supreme court ruling that undercuts state rights. Roe v. Wade is a Constitutional abomination. Some of us care about the rule of law. Sadly, that doesn't include you. Undercutting the rule of law is far more dangerous to our liberty than any transactional victory. People like you that don't recognize that are destroying us. Sadly there are way too many of you who just want to win

The right doesn't seem to have a problem with undercutting States' rights; especially regarding gun control and drug laws

No, they don't. That's why I'm a ... wait for it ... libertarian. Does the obvious eventually dawn on Canadians, or not really?

You can call yourself a Libertarian all you want, but you'll vote Republican in 2016

 

[kaz]

Admit it, you like me, you really really like me

This is hilarious. You came into the thread making it sound like you wanted a real discussion. I gave you every chance to prove that, and you proved you didn't, it was a lie. Fine, you're a liberal. That's what you do.

But this is what you came away with? That is un fucking believably funny. This is earth, calling toxicmedia's ego. You can stare at yourself in the mirror for hours, can't you?

Wow, the Madonna reference was lost on you huh?

Yes, gay boy, it was. Somehow I'm not bothered by that. I suppose that comes from being straight.

Later on, if ya wanna, we can dress, like Madonna....

 

[kaz]

I don't care how outraged you are that the Supreme Court won't allow public schools to have separate schools for blacks and whites

Pull down your dress, Darlene, your twat is showing. You sure showed me up as the insulter, didn't you? LOL, what a stupid bitch you are

Who is Darlene?

And I only wish I had a twat, I'd never leave the house

You do, you just need to self actualize

 

[kaz]

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's only tyranny when your side loses.

Bull. For example, I'm pro-choice and anti-death penalty, but I cringe at every supreme court ruling that undercuts state rights. Roe v. Wade is a Constitutional abomination. Some of us care about the rule of law. Sadly, that doesn't include you. Undercutting the rule of law is far more dangerous to our liberty than any transactional victory. People like you that don't recognize that are destroying us. Sadly there are way too many of you who just want to win

The right doesn't seem to have a problem with undercutting States' rights; especially regarding gun control and drug laws

No, they don't. That's why I'm a ... wait for it ... libertarian. Does the obvious eventually dawn on Canadians, or not really?

You can call yourself a Libertarian all you want, but you'll vote Republican in 2016

Well, using the last six elections as a guide it's possible. You have a 17% chance of being right

 

[PaintMyHouse]

It's only tyranny when your side loses.

Bull. For example, I'm pro-choice and anti-death penalty, but I cringe at every supreme court ruling that undercuts state rights. Roe v. Wade is a Constitutional abomination. Some of us care about the rule of law. Sadly, that doesn't include you. Undercutting the rule of law is far more dangerous to our liberty than any transactional victory. People like you that don't recognize that are destroying us. Sadly there are way too many of you who just want to win

The right doesn't seem to have a problem with undercutting States' rights; especially regarding gun control and drug laws

No, they don't. That's why I'm a ... wait for it ... libertarian. Does the obvious eventually dawn on Canadians, or not really?

You can call yourself a Libertarian all you want, but you'll vote Republican in 2016

Well, using the last six elections as a guide it's possible. You have a 17% chance of being right

Nothing like throwing your vote away, 5 out of 6 times.