Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[PaintMyHouse]

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?

Read what you post, we do but God only knows why...

 

[kaz]

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.

It was a direct response. What you asked didn't contradict anything I said

 

[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 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?

Read what you post, we do but God only knows why...

Is this the thing again where you don't grasp that my saying I disagree with the courts doesn't mean I don't grasp they ruled it?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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?

Read what you post, we do but God only knows why...

Is this the thing again where you don't grasp that my saying I disagree with the courts doesn't mean I don't grasp they ruled it?

Nope, and never said that.

 

[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 ******* 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

Hate crime statutes (U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 13 › § 249) prove you wrong.

You lose again.

 

[Faun]

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...

The dictionary is named, "Merriam-Webster." So why on Earth would I suspect you were talking about the dictionary when you said, "Meriams?"

You're a ******* retard.

 

[kaz]

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?

Read what you post, we do but God only knows why...

Is this the thing again where you don't grasp that my saying I disagree with the courts doesn't mean I don't grasp they ruled it?

Nope, and never said that.

You say that all the time. So if it isn't that this time, what is it? I don't see anything contradicting anything I've said

 

[kaz]

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...

The dictionary is named, "Merriam-Webster." So why on Earth would I suspect you were talking about the dictionary when you said, "Meriams?"

You're a ******* retard.

And you're slow. I mean special

 

[Faun]

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.

It was a direct response. What you asked didn't contradict anything I said

You insinuated the Supreme Court rules over the Constitution. They do not. They rule on every case they choose which arises under the Constitution. That includes cases of judicial review, which also arise under the Constitution. Is any of this getting through to you??

 

[Faun]

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...

The dictionary is named, "Merriam-Webster." So why on Earth would I suspect you were talking about the dictionary when you said, "Meriams?"

You're a ******* retard.

And you're slow. I mean special

Spits the ******* retard who thought "alright" isn't a word; or that "OP" didn't stand for "opening post."

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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?

You have the necessary context. Rational, yes or no?

 

[RKMBrown]

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 ***** 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

You want me to be nice about you having your jack boot on their necks? You want me to ask you to pretty please get off their necks? Yeah well if I thought that would end this rage against liberty I would get on TV and ask everyone to please let there be liberty.

 

[kaz]

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?

You have the necessary context. Rational, yes or no?

You gave me no context at all, how is that the necessary context? Are we assuming if they don't kill the child they will starve? Can they give it up for adoption? You gave me no context at all. I'm not a leftists like you, I don't knee jerk answers to questions like that. Give me a clearer scenario

 

[kaz]

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 ***** 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

You want me to be nice about you having your jack boot on their necks?

There is a mid range between having a stick up your ass and being "nice"

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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

Non-sequitur

Your evasion is again duly noted.

It was a direct response. What you asked didn't contradict anything I said

You insinuated the Supreme Court rules over the Constitution. They do not. They rule on every case they choose which arises under the Constitution. That includes cases of judicial review, which also arise under the Constitution. Is any of this getting through to you??

Deciding

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?

You have the necessary context. Rational, yes or no?

You gave me no context at all, how is that the necessary context? Are we assuming if they don't kill the child they will starve? Can they give it up for adoption? You gave me no context at all. I'm not a leftists like you, I don't knee jerk answers to questions like that. Give me a clearer scenario

The child will starve, no other options. Yes, or no?

 

[RKMBrown]

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 ***** 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

You want me to be nice about you having your jack boot on their necks?

There is a mid range between having a stick up your ass and being "nice"

Oh. If I thought you were willing to be rational about it.. maybe I'd find that mid point.

 

[rcfieldz]

I want a straight relationship. Havn't found the right gal yet. I have wanted to propose before but the relationships took a turn at the last minute. I had a guy say he would marry me but I know he just wanted sex. So I guess I stick with being single for now.

 

[kaz]

Non-sequitur

Your evasion is again duly noted.

It was a direct response. What you asked didn't contradict anything I said

You insinuated the Supreme Court rules over the Constitution. They do not. They rule on every case they choose which arises under the Constitution. That includes cases of judicial review, which also arise under the Constitution. Is any of this getting through to you??

Deciding

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?

You have the necessary context. Rational, yes or no?

You gave me no context at all, how is that the necessary context? Are we assuming if they don't kill the child they will starve? Can they give it up for adoption? You gave me no context at all. I'm not a leftists like you, I don't knee jerk answers to questions like that. Give me a clearer scenario

The child will starve, no other options. Yes, or no?

Then it's rational. And that proves what exactly?

 

[kaz]

I want a straight relationship. Havn't found the right gal yet. I have wanted to propose before but the relationships took a turn at the last minute. I had a guy say he would marry me but I know he just wanted sex. So I guess I stick with being single for now.

If a last minute turn changed things, it's a good thing it happened before you committed the rest of your life to them since it doesn't sound like it was solid

 

[JakeStarkey]

Kaz thinks SCOTUS is placing a jack boot on whose neck?

His? SCOTUS is going to make him marry someone of the same sex.

If that is so, I will come and save Kaz.