Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[Seawytch]

Except I never predicted how you would respond to the ruling. The conversations you have with me in your head aren't real.

No, you repeatedly informed me I was going to be upset when the Supreme Court ruled what they did. I responded repeatedly I thought they would rule this way and you are wrong, it wouldn't affect my view at all.

I did say it wasn't the slam dunk you thought it was, but it would probably go this way. Roberts puts his career above his country and Kennedy is an attention whore who loves when the liberal media adores him and you only needed one of the two, you got it. I thought you probably would.

If this was something I did "repeatedly", then you should be able to link to at least one instance of it. You haven't because you can't. You're mistaken.

That's a subtle search and when I show you you'll ignore it or say yeah, whatever.

So if I can show you that you are full of shit and you did tell me I would be upset about the supreme court ruling, what are you going to do? Will you ban yourself for the rest of July?

Please, proceed Governor. Search away.

Find the post where I claimed you'd be upset over the SSM ruling.

The rest of July? No. I'll give you a heartfelt apology and wish you a happy 4th.

It was a confidence test. So now your challenge is for me to find a very difficult search for a search function in thousands of posts for you to say oops, my bad. I'll pass on that, and you just admitted you aren't confident you didn't even say it. Set and match, my dear. You may now deflect away

You're mistaken until you provide evidence. You haven't because you can't. Come on Kazzie, if it's here it should be in this very thread. Happy hunting...otherwise you're just plain lying.

 

[bripat9643]

I at least get the concept of straight government marriage. Perpetuation of the species. It is the best situation for kids to have a traditional family with a mother and father because:

1) Men and women have different personalities and it is ideal for kids to have a parental relationship with one of each. Having two of the same sex is like having two left shoes or two right shoes. Neither a left shoe nor right shoes is more important than the other, you need one of each. They are different.

2) Kids are best served with a stay at home parent, generally a mother for many reasons for nurturing, caring and helping them stay out of trouble unattended

So for a mother to stay home, it's expensive. Taxpayers as part of the species benefit from the advancement of the species. And frankly that leads even financially to better taxpayers on average in the future.

If gays want to mate and pool resources, that's fine. But why should taxpayers pay for that? Government revenue is reduced, but why? What do we get out of it? Why should we have to fund it? What benefit is it to society that we should be paying for it?

The question: This is a financial question, not a moral one. How financially do the rest of us benefit that government should be charging us higher taxes to make up for lower taxes for people to have gay sex who do not perpetuate the species? Why do we gain for that we should pay for it? That is the question

Now what kaz...?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

... now you're legally obligated to subsidize gay mating in all 50 states ... (or be the wife in your family).

My prediction came true. The Supreme court ruled and my position didn't change, it made no difference to me. You and Seawytch both went down in complete flames on that one

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of what we predicted, leaving you, someone who's against government ordained marriage, stuck with "subsidizing gay mating," which you are also against -- and you're so delusional, you think I was the one to go down in flames.

Yep, forcing people to do what they don't want to do is what liberalism is all about. Only the truly servile and totalitarian would gloat about something like that.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I at least get the concept of straight government marriage. Perpetuation of the species. It is the best situation for kids to have a traditional family with a mother and father because:

1) Men and women have different personalities and it is ideal for kids to have a parental relationship with one of each. Having two of the same sex is like having two left shoes or two right shoes. Neither a left shoe nor right shoes is more important than the other, you need one of each. They are different.

2) Kids are best served with a stay at home parent, generally a mother for many reasons for nurturing, caring and helping them stay out of trouble unattended

So for a mother to stay home, it's expensive. Taxpayers as part of the species benefit from the advancement of the species. And frankly that leads even financially to better taxpayers on average in the future.

If gays want to mate and pool resources, that's fine. But why should taxpayers pay for that? Government revenue is reduced, but why? What do we get out of it? Why should we have to fund it? What benefit is it to society that we should be paying for it?

The question: This is a financial question, not a moral one. How financially do the rest of us benefit that government should be charging us higher taxes to make up for lower taxes for people to have gay sex who do not perpetuate the species? Why do we gain for that we should pay for it? That is the question

Now what kaz...?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

... now you're legally obligated to subsidize gay mating in all 50 states ... (or be the wife in your family).

My prediction came true. The Supreme court ruled and my position didn't change, it made no difference to me. You and Seawytch both went down in complete flames on that one

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of what we predicted, leaving you, someone who's against government ordained marriage, stuck with "subsidizing gay mating," which you are also against -- and you're so delusional, you think I was the one to go down in flames.

Yep, forcing people to do what they don't want to do is what liberalism is all about. Only the truly servile and totalitarian would gloat about something like that.

We know, my little infant Bri-piss, you hate all rules and have since mommy made you sit on the potty...

 

[kaz]

No, you repeatedly informed me I was going to be upset when the Supreme Court ruled what they did. I responded repeatedly I thought they would rule this way and you are wrong, it wouldn't affect my view at all.

I did say it wasn't the slam dunk you thought it was, but it would probably go this way. Roberts puts his career above his country and Kennedy is an attention whore who loves when the liberal media adores him and you only needed one of the two, you got it. I thought you probably would.

If this was something I did "repeatedly", then you should be able to link to at least one instance of it. You haven't because you can't. You're mistaken.

That's a subtle search and when I show you you'll ignore it or say yeah, whatever.

So if I can show you that you are full of shit and you did tell me I would be upset about the supreme court ruling, what are you going to do? Will you ban yourself for the rest of July?

Please, proceed Governor. Search away.

Find the post where I claimed you'd be upset over the SSM ruling.

The rest of July? No. I'll give you a heartfelt apology and wish you a happy 4th.

It was a confidence test. So now your challenge is for me to find a very difficult search for a search function in thousands of posts for you to say oops, my bad. I'll pass on that, and you just admitted you aren't confident you didn't even say it. Set and match, my dear. You may now deflect away

You're mistaken until you provide evidence. You haven't because you can't. Come on Kazzie, if it's here it should be in this very thread. Happy hunting...otherwise you're just plain lying.

Yes, the choice of people is to back up every statement they make based on any random challenge by any useless poster or they are lying. Got it

 

[Seawytch]

If this was something I did "repeatedly", then you should be able to link to at least one instance of it. You haven't because you can't. You're mistaken.

That's a subtle search and when I show you you'll ignore it or say yeah, whatever.

So if I can show you that you are full of shit and you did tell me I would be upset about the supreme court ruling, what are you going to do? Will you ban yourself for the rest of July?

Please, proceed Governor. Search away.

Find the post where I claimed you'd be upset over the SSM ruling.

The rest of July? No. I'll give you a heartfelt apology and wish you a happy 4th.

It was a confidence test. So now your challenge is for me to find a very difficult search for a search function in thousands of posts for you to say oops, my bad. I'll pass on that, and you just admitted you aren't confident you didn't even say it. Set and match, my dear. You may now deflect away

You're mistaken until you provide evidence. You haven't because you can't. Come on Kazzie, if it's here it should be in this very thread. Happy hunting...otherwise you're just plain lying.

Yes, the choice of people is to back up every statement they make based on any random challenge by any useless poster or they are lying. Got it

Nope...just a direct claim you made about me. You can't do it, liar.

 

[kaz]

I at least get the concept of straight government marriage. Perpetuation of the species. It is the best situation for kids to have a traditional family with a mother and father because:

1) Men and women have different personalities and it is ideal for kids to have a parental relationship with one of each. Having two of the same sex is like having two left shoes or two right shoes. Neither a left shoe nor right shoes is more important than the other, you need one of each. They are different.

2) Kids are best served with a stay at home parent, generally a mother for many reasons for nurturing, caring and helping them stay out of trouble unattended

So for a mother to stay home, it's expensive. Taxpayers as part of the species benefit from the advancement of the species. And frankly that leads even financially to better taxpayers on average in the future.

If gays want to mate and pool resources, that's fine. But why should taxpayers pay for that? Government revenue is reduced, but why? What do we get out of it? Why should we have to fund it? What benefit is it to society that we should be paying for it?

The question: This is a financial question, not a moral one. How financially do the rest of us benefit that government should be charging us higher taxes to make up for lower taxes for people to have gay sex who do not perpetuate the species? Why do we gain for that we should pay for it? That is the question

Now what kaz...?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

... now you're legally obligated to subsidize gay mating in all 50 states ... (or be the wife in your family).

My prediction came true. The Supreme court ruled and my position didn't change, it made no difference to me. You and Seawytch both went down in complete flames on that one

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of what we predicted, leaving you, someone who's against government ordained marriage, stuck with "subsidizing gay mating," which you are also against -- and you're so delusional, you think I was the one to go down in flames.

Yep, forcing people to do what they don't want to do is what liberalism is all about. Only the truly servile and totalitarian would gloat about something like that.

We know, my little infant Bri-piss, you hate all rules and have since mommy made you sit on the potty...

Right, he's an infant who doesn't follow rules. Not a big boy like you who does, your mommy told you that

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Now what kaz...?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

... now you're legally obligated to subsidize gay mating in all 50 states ... (or be the wife in your family).

My prediction came true. The Supreme court ruled and my position didn't change, it made no difference to me. You and Seawytch both went down in complete flames on that one

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of what we predicted, leaving you, someone who's against government ordained marriage, stuck with "subsidizing gay mating," which you are also against -- and you're so delusional, you think I was the one to go down in flames.

Yep, forcing people to do what they don't want to do is what liberalism is all about. Only the truly servile and totalitarian would gloat about something like that.

We know, my little infant Bri-piss, you hate all rules and have since mommy made you sit on the potty...

Right, he's an infant who doesn't follow rules. Not a big boy like you who does, your mommy told you that

That she did, many, many decades ago. And unlike Bri-piss's mommy, she taught me that life has rules, which it does, and if you don't follow them mommy spank...

 

[kaz]

That's a subtle search and when I show you you'll ignore it or say yeah, whatever.

So if I can show you that you are full of shit and you did tell me I would be upset about the supreme court ruling, what are you going to do? Will you ban yourself for the rest of July?

Please, proceed Governor. Search away.

Find the post where I claimed you'd be upset over the SSM ruling.

The rest of July? No. I'll give you a heartfelt apology and wish you a happy 4th.

It was a confidence test. So now your challenge is for me to find a very difficult search for a search function in thousands of posts for you to say oops, my bad. I'll pass on that, and you just admitted you aren't confident you didn't even say it. Set and match, my dear. You may now deflect away

You're mistaken until you provide evidence. You haven't because you can't. Come on Kazzie, if it's here it should be in this very thread. Happy hunting...otherwise you're just plain lying.

Yes, the choice of people is to back up every statement they make based on any random challenge by any useless poster or they are lying. Got it

Nope...just a direct claim you made about me. You can't do it, liar.

So if I'm lying, why won't you agree to ban yourself for the rest of July if I prove it? If it's a lie, why wouldn't you agree to that? I didn't make a stupid leave the site forever wager as so many morons did over the election, just saying for 4 weeks, the balance of the month

 

[kaz]

My prediction came true. The Supreme court ruled and my position didn't change, it made no difference to me. You and Seawytch both went down in complete flames on that one

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of what we predicted, leaving you, someone who's against government ordained marriage, stuck with "subsidizing gay mating," which you are also against -- and you're so delusional, you think I was the one to go down in flames.

Yep, forcing people to do what they don't want to do is what liberalism is all about. Only the truly servile and totalitarian would gloat about something like that.

We know, my little infant Bri-piss, you hate all rules and have since mommy made you sit on the potty...

Right, he's an infant who doesn't follow rules. Not a big boy like you who does, your mommy told you that

That she did, many, many decades ago. And unlike Bri-piss's mommy, she taught me that life has rules, which it does, and if you don't follow them mommy spank...

She taught you well. Just so you know, she expected you to grow up and think for yourself eventually

 

[Seawytch]

Please, proceed Governor. Search away.

Find the post where I claimed you'd be upset over the SSM ruling.

The rest of July? No. I'll give you a heartfelt apology and wish you a happy 4th.

It was a confidence test. So now your challenge is for me to find a very difficult search for a search function in thousands of posts for you to say oops, my bad. I'll pass on that, and you just admitted you aren't confident you didn't even say it. Set and match, my dear. You may now deflect away

You're mistaken until you provide evidence. You haven't because you can't. Come on Kazzie, if it's here it should be in this very thread. Happy hunting...otherwise you're just plain lying.

Yes, the choice of people is to back up every statement they make based on any random challenge by any useless poster or they are lying. Got it

Nope...just a direct claim you made about me. You can't do it, liar.

So if I'm lying, why won't you agree to ban yourself for the rest of July if I prove it? If it's a lie, why wouldn't you agree to that? I didn't make a stupid leave the site forever wager as so many morons did over the election, just saying for 4 weeks, the balance of the month

I'll give you two weeks if you can find a post where I made a claim about how upset you'd be over the SCOTUS ruling. Happy hunting.

 

[Faun]

I at least get the concept of straight government marriage. Perpetuation of the species. It is the best situation for kids to have a traditional family with a mother and father because:

1) Men and women have different personalities and it is ideal for kids to have a parental relationship with one of each. Having two of the same sex is like having two left shoes or two right shoes. Neither a left shoe nor right shoes is more important than the other, you need one of each. They are different.

2) Kids are best served with a stay at home parent, generally a mother for many reasons for nurturing, caring and helping them stay out of trouble unattended

So for a mother to stay home, it's expensive. Taxpayers as part of the species benefit from the advancement of the species. And frankly that leads even financially to better taxpayers on average in the future.

If gays want to mate and pool resources, that's fine. But why should taxpayers pay for that? Government revenue is reduced, but why? What do we get out of it? Why should we have to fund it? What benefit is it to society that we should be paying for it?

The question: This is a financial question, not a moral one. How financially do the rest of us benefit that government should be charging us higher taxes to make up for lower taxes for people to have gay sex who do not perpetuate the species? Why do we gain for that we should pay for it? That is the question

Now what kaz...?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

... now you're legally obligated to subsidize gay mating in all 50 states ... (or be the wife in your family).

My prediction came true. The Supreme court ruled and my position didn't change, it made no difference to me. You and Seawytch both went down in complete flames on that one

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of what we predicted, leaving you, someone who's against government ordained marriage, stuck with "subsidizing gay mating," which you are also against -- and you're so delusional, you think I was the one to go down in flames.

Yep, forcing people to do what they don't want to do is what liberalism is all about. Only the truly servile and totalitarian would gloat about something like that.

You dolt. Our country was founded on the ideal that Congress can raise taxes. From the earliest days, people were forced to pay taxes for things they didn't agree with.

 

[Faun]

I at least get the concept of straight government marriage. Perpetuation of the species. It is the best situation for kids to have a traditional family with a mother and father because:

1) Men and women have different personalities and it is ideal for kids to have a parental relationship with one of each. Having two of the same sex is like having two left shoes or two right shoes. Neither a left shoe nor right shoes is more important than the other, you need one of each. They are different.

2) Kids are best served with a stay at home parent, generally a mother for many reasons for nurturing, caring and helping them stay out of trouble unattended

So for a mother to stay home, it's expensive. Taxpayers as part of the species benefit from the advancement of the species. And frankly that leads even financially to better taxpayers on average in the future.

If gays want to mate and pool resources, that's fine. But why should taxpayers pay for that? Government revenue is reduced, but why? What do we get out of it? Why should we have to fund it? What benefit is it to society that we should be paying for it?

The question: This is a financial question, not a moral one. How financially do the rest of us benefit that government should be charging us higher taxes to make up for lower taxes for people to have gay sex who do not perpetuate the species? Why do we gain for that we should pay for it? That is the question

Now what kaz...?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

... now you're legally obligated to subsidize gay mating in all 50 states ... (or be the wife in your family).

My prediction came true. The Supreme court ruled and my position didn't change, it made no difference to me. You and Seawytch both went down in complete flames on that one

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of what we predicted, leaving you, someone who's against government ordained marriage, stuck with "subsidizing gay mating," which you are also against -- and you're so delusional, you think I was the one to go down in flames.

I subsidize a lot more straight marriages than gay ones. You have zero sense of perspective. That was never the point of the thread

So? You're against them all, remember? But you think I'm the one who went down in flames over this decision.

 

[kaz]

I'll give you two weeks if you can find a post where I made a claim about how upset you'd be over the SCOTUS ruling. Happy hunting.

Deal. Here you go, see you in two weeks

You don't think the leftists have a gay agenda? Wow, you are an ignorant slut, Jane

No bigot, they have an equality agenda. That's the only "gay agenda" there is.

Your thread isn't about taxes or civil marriage law, it's about you needing validation from other bigots for your anti gay agenda.

Well Jane, you ignorant slut. That gays are already treated equally is what shows what an "agenda" the left has on this

Not yet...just give it a few weeks though, bigot, and we will be. My marriage will be treated exactly like yours is.

Jane you ignorant slut,

That is irrelevant to the discussion. Whatever the SCOTUS rules, I won't change my mind. I think for my self, I'm not a vacuous automaton who thinks what I am told to think like you. I also don't sleep with random strangers if they buy me a drink either, but that's another subject.

Also, while a leftist ruling is certainly likely from this court with 5 liberal justices and Roberts caring more about his career than his country, Kennedy does flip flop for attention and Roberts could do the right thing. My money is on you, but your victory is not in the bag.

Good to know you've got the excuses all lined up. Either way, my civil marriage will be treated exactly like your civil marriage in all 50 states. That it will annoy you is just icing on the proverbial wedding cake.

 

[kaz]

I at least get the concept of straight government marriage. Perpetuation of the species. It is the best situation for kids to have a traditional family with a mother and father because:

1) Men and women have different personalities and it is ideal for kids to have a parental relationship with one of each. Having two of the same sex is like having two left shoes or two right shoes. Neither a left shoe nor right shoes is more important than the other, you need one of each. They are different.

2) Kids are best served with a stay at home parent, generally a mother for many reasons for nurturing, caring and helping them stay out of trouble unattended

So for a mother to stay home, it's expensive. Taxpayers as part of the species benefit from the advancement of the species. And frankly that leads even financially to better taxpayers on average in the future.

If gays want to mate and pool resources, that's fine. But why should taxpayers pay for that? Government revenue is reduced, but why? What do we get out of it? Why should we have to fund it? What benefit is it to society that we should be paying for it?

The question: This is a financial question, not a moral one. How financially do the rest of us benefit that government should be charging us higher taxes to make up for lower taxes for people to have gay sex who do not perpetuate the species? Why do we gain for that we should pay for it? That is the question

Now what kaz...?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

... now you're legally obligated to subsidize gay mating in all 50 states ... (or be the wife in your family).

My prediction came true. The Supreme court ruled and my position didn't change, it made no difference to me. You and Seawytch both went down in complete flames on that one

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of what we predicted, leaving you, someone who's against government ordained marriage, stuck with "subsidizing gay mating," which you are also against -- and you're so delusional, you think I was the one to go down in flames.

I subsidize a lot more straight marriages than gay ones. You have zero sense of perspective. That was never the point of the thread

So? You're against them all, remember? But you think I'm the one who went down in flames over this decision.

You just provided another reminder never to post drunk

 

[Faun]

You can post where I said anything about your reaction?

You did it repeatedly, I'm not interested in a no, duh, you don't remember that now debate. Man up

Except I never predicted how you would respond to the ruling. The conversations you have with me in your head aren't real.

Better known as .... kazzing.

Thank you, and you are correct. I am kazzing, I don't blindly accept leftist ideology like you do, gay boy. I will never stop kazzing

"Kazzing" is synonymous with "lying." You're funny in that you think you get to redefine how I use the term. At least you admit you can't stop.

 

[kaz]

You can post where I said anything about your reaction?

You did it repeatedly, I'm not interested in a no, duh, you don't remember that now debate. Man up

Except I never predicted how you would respond to the ruling. The conversations you have with me in your head aren't real.

Better known as .... kazzing.

Thank you, and you are correct. I am kazzing, I don't blindly accept leftist ideology like you do, gay boy. I will never stop kazzing

"Kazzing" is synonymous with "lying." You're funny in that you think you get to redefine how I use the term. At least you admit you can't stop.

To a liberal, it certainly is. Everyone knows that liberalism is by definition truth. Anyone who doesn't accept that is clearly kazzing. I mean lying. You mentioned that. So yes, I am definitely kazzing, I don't accept the truth of liberalism.

BTW, you can't read, I didn't say anywhere I "can't" stop, I said I won't stop, and I won't

 

[Seawytch]

I'll give you two weeks if you can find a post where I made a claim about how upset you'd be over the SCOTUS ruling. Happy hunting.

Deal. Here you go, see you in two weeks

No bigot, they have an equality agenda. That's the only "gay agenda" there is.

Your thread isn't about taxes or civil marriage law, it's about you needing validation from other bigots for your anti gay agenda.

Well Jane, you ignorant slut. That gays are already treated equally is what shows what an "agenda" the left has on this

Not yet...just give it a few weeks though, bigot, and we will be. My marriage will be treated exactly like yours is.

Jane you ignorant slut,

That is irrelevant to the discussion. Whatever the SCOTUS rules, I won't change my mind. I think for my self, I'm not a vacuous automaton who thinks what I am told to think like you. I also don't sleep with random strangers if they buy me a drink either, but that's another subject.

Also, while a leftist ruling is certainly likely from this court with 5 liberal justices and Roberts caring more about his career than his country, Kennedy does flip flop for attention and Roberts could do the right thing. My money is on you, but your victory is not in the bag.

Good to know you've got the excuses all lined up. Either way, my civil marriage will be treated exactly like your civil marriage in all 50 states. That it will annoy you is just icing on the proverbial wedding cake.

I don't see the word upset. Annoy is hardly the same as upset. Besides...I know it did annoy you.

 

[kaz]

I'll give you two weeks if you can find a post where I made a claim about how upset you'd be over the SCOTUS ruling. Happy hunting.

Deal. Here you go, see you in two weeks

Well Jane, you ignorant slut. That gays are already treated equally is what shows what an "agenda" the left has on this

Not yet...just give it a few weeks though, bigot, and we will be. My marriage will be treated exactly like yours is.

Jane you ignorant slut,

That is irrelevant to the discussion. Whatever the SCOTUS rules, I won't change my mind. I think for my self, I'm not a vacuous automaton who thinks what I am told to think like you. I also don't sleep with random strangers if they buy me a drink either, but that's another subject.

Also, while a leftist ruling is certainly likely from this court with 5 liberal justices and Roberts caring more about his career than his country, Kennedy does flip flop for attention and Roberts could do the right thing. My money is on you, but your victory is not in the bag.

Good to know you've got the excuses all lined up. Either way, my civil marriage will be treated exactly like your civil marriage in all 50 states. That it will annoy you is just icing on the proverbial wedding cake.

I don't see the word upset. Annoy is hardly the same as upset. Besides...I know it did annoy you.

I didn't quote the word upset. This is exactly what I said you would do and why I said I wouldn't waste my time.

QED, just remember this going forward, and it turns out you are the liar. Welshing on a bet, pathetic. You have now made clear what you are

 

[Faun]

You did it repeatedly, I'm not interested in a no, duh, you don't remember that now debate. Man up

Except I never predicted how you would respond to the ruling. The conversations you have with me in your head aren't real.

Better known as .... kazzing.

Thank you, and you are correct. I am kazzing, I don't blindly accept leftist ideology like you do, gay boy. I will never stop kazzing

"Kazzing" is synonymous with "lying." You're funny in that you think you get to redefine how I use the term. At least you admit you can't stop.

To a liberal, it certainly is. Everyone knows that liberalism is by definition truth. Anyone who doesn't accept that is clearly kazzing. I mean lying. You mentioned that. So yes, I am definitely kazzing, I don't accept the truth of liberalism.

BTW, you can't read, I didn't say anywhere I "can't" stop, I said I won't stop, and I won't

I never said Liberalism is by definition, truth. That is you just kazzing again. You lie all the time and you are called on it often. That has nothing to do with what you will or won't accept. It has everything to do with you being an unabashed liar.

 

[kaz]

I never predicted how you would respond to the ruling. The conversations you have with me in your head aren't real.

I'll give you two weeks if you can find a post where I made a claim about how upset you'd be over the SCOTUS ruling. Happy hunting.

Deal. Here you go, see you in two weeks

Well Jane, you ignorant slut. That gays are already treated equally is what shows what an "agenda" the left has on this

Not yet...just give it a few weeks though, bigot, and we will be. My marriage will be treated exactly like yours is.

Jane you ignorant slut,

That is irrelevant to the discussion. Whatever the SCOTUS rules, I won't change my mind. I think for my self, I'm not a vacuous automaton who thinks what I am told to think like you. I also don't sleep with random strangers if they buy me a drink either, but that's another subject.

Also, while a leftist ruling is certainly likely from this court with 5 liberal justices and Roberts caring more about his career than his country, Kennedy does flip flop for attention and Roberts could do the right thing. My money is on you, but your victory is not in the bag.

Good to know you've got the excuses all lined up. Either way, my civil marriage will be treated exactly like your civil marriage in all 50 states. That it will annoy you is just icing on the proverbial wedding cake.

I don't see the word upset. Annoy is hardly the same as upset. Besides...I know it did annoy you.

Here's another way you put it. You knew the word "upset," which neither of us quoted, was the actual word. You said how annoyed I would be, that is saying how I "would respond to the ruling" and to be annoyed is to be upset.

I never predicted how you would respond to the ruling. The conversations you have with me in your head aren't real.

Time to man up and go away for two weeks, or just admit you're a liar with no honor