Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[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.

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

Your life must be lucky. I've seen more than my share of tragedy.

 

[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

Your life must be lucky. I've seen more than my share of tragedy.

I am lucky, that I agree on. I'm not sure what you mean though. Are you saying it was something out of their control, like a car wreck or illness? I thought you meant something like you had a disagreement you couldn't get past

 

[kaz]

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.

And so preventative anger that would crush concrete between your butt cheeks sends what message, grasshopper?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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'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?

Good, a rational and truthful answer. It's like pulling teeth but you can attest to infanticide being a rational choice.

 

[Plasmaball]

The idiotic assumption behind this "concept" is that people will stop having sex and kids if the government doesn't pay them to, and it just does not get more retarded than that.

Was the human race on the verge of dying out before the government gifts were put in place?

NOPE!!!

Actually Progs want everyone to have less children because they are convinced that all the world's problems stem from over population.

That's why they favor gay marriage, abortion, and the destruction of the world economy.

The thinking is, the better the economy the longer people live.

Liberals see people are a liability. Conservatives see them as an asset.

Straw men fallacies which do nothing to support the idiotic concept that people need to be paid by their government to **** and have kids.

Since the both of you support this government behavioral control program, perhaps you should examine who it is who are the "progressives" and who it is who is the conservative.

Ironic post is ironic.
Ron Paul supports traditional marriage btw.

Ron Paul supports eliminating the very government gifts of which I speak.

You are a welfare slave on the government plantation who does not want to leave the massah's porch and strike out on your own.

Same sex marriage wouldn't even be an issue were it not for all the government gifts involved, you dumb slave!

um.....most people dont get married for the government gifts. I know i didnt.
This thread is dumb

 

[JakeStarkey]

Actually Progs want everyone to have less children because they are convinced that all the world's problems stem from over population.

That's why they favor gay marriage, abortion, and the destruction of the world economy.

The thinking is, the better the economy the longer people live.

Liberals see people are a liability. Conservatives see them as an asset.

Straw men fallacies which do nothing to support the idiotic concept that people need to be paid by their government to **** and have kids.

Since the both of you support this government behavioral control program, perhaps you should examine who it is who are the "progressives" and who it is who is the conservative.

Ironic post is ironic.
Ron Paul supports traditional marriage btw.

Ron Paul supports eliminating the very government gifts of which I speak.

You are a welfare slave on the government plantation who does not want to leave the massah's porch and strike out on your own.

Same sex marriage wouldn't even be an issue were it not for all the government gifts involved, you dumb slave!

um.....most people dont get married for the government gifts. I know i didnt.
This thread is dumb

Yup, but that is what often comes from the libertarians.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

And so preventative anger that would crush concrete between your butt cheeks sends what message, grasshopper?

Preventative anger?

 

[toxicmedia]

Of course it does. The Constitution grants the judiciary judicial power to hear ALL cases arising under the Constitution. ALL cases includes cases of judicial review.

When do you stop being retarded?

No, it doesn't say that, stop being retarded. They are "tasked" with it, but who tasked them? Simple question, and you're a simpleton, it's in your native language. Stop running away and provide the simple, direct, clear answer. There is one

Yes, it does say that...

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution​

Yes, "under" the Constitution. That means the Constitution is the ruler. It does not mean they have authority over the Constitution to change the ruler

I didn't say it does. This is yet another example of how your retardation prevents you from understanding pretty much everything.

What I said is they have judicial power in ALL cases arising under the Constitution. That includes cases of judicial review.

Do you understand now or would it be helpful to you if I wrote it in crayon...?

Wow, you're going to be in trouble with ToxicMedia, he's against insults. Funny thing is that standard so far has only been evoked with me, the one he disagrees with. I'm sure he's planning to correct that, he couldn't be a hypocrite or anything

Invoked would have been correct.

And whaddya do?....wait till I'm gone to attack.

tsk tsk tsk

 

[toxicmedia]

I'm not concerned about the tax implications of allowing same sex marriage

I can't imagine we're talking about a significant amount of money

That isn't the point. The point is that the left want the progressive taxes and death tax, then you want to let your pets off of paying them.

The other financial point was how Democrats use that same argument. For example, on the government shutdown. That Obama was so incompetent he spent more shutting down government than operating it became an attack on Republicans for costing money. The Republicans wanted spending cuts, but they weren't allowed to cost government any money to get them. Leftists have endless contradictions, hypocrisies and double standards, and you don't get it when that's pointed out.

Just so you know, my actual view on gay government marriage is that as long as it's done Constitutionally through the legislature, then I don't care about it any more or less than any other government marriage

You want a Republican dominated House, and Senate to decide?

Do you expect me to believe your devotion to the Constitution weighs more heavily in your desire to see the Republican dominated congress make that decision...than the obvious fact that your side would decide the way you want?

If a constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage bans were to be created, then you'd have no problem?

If a constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage were to be created, how would that affect your position?

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

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

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

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

It's only tyranny when your side loses.

 

[toxicmedia]

Yes, it does say that...

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution​

Yes, "under" the Constitution. That means the Constitution is the ruler. It does not mean they have authority over the Constitution to change the ruler

I didn't say it does. This is yet another example of how your retardation prevents you from understanding pretty much everything.

What I said is they have judicial power in ALL cases arising under the Constitution. That includes cases of judicial review.

Do you understand now or would it be helpful to you if I wrote it in crayon...?

Wow, you're going to be in trouble with ToxicMedia, he's against insults. Funny thing is that standard so far has only been evoked with me, the one he disagrees with. I'm sure he's planning to correct that, he couldn't be a hypocrite or anything

Your evasion is duly noted.

As is ToxicMedia's double standard

There you go again, you're like a yappy little Chihuahua.

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

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

Don't pretend to be objective

Don't respond to snark with first year philosophy fallacies.

Don't act like the SCOTUS shouldn't make decisions about the constitution.

Stop viewing what you say, and the responses to it, as victories or losses. If you don't, you'll never find yourself saying things like "I stand corrected"...and nobody is above being corrected. Thus the concept of "learning"

 

[Votto]

That isn't the point. The point is that the left want the progressive taxes and death tax, then you want to let your pets off of paying them.

The other financial point was how Democrats use that same argument. For example, on the government shutdown. That Obama was so incompetent he spent more shutting down government than operating it became an attack on Republicans for costing money. The Republicans wanted spending cuts, but they weren't allowed to cost government any money to get them. Leftists have endless contradictions, hypocrisies and double standards, and you don't get it when that's pointed out.

Just so you know, my actual view on gay government marriage is that as long as it's done Constitutionally through the legislature, then I don't care about it any more or less than any other government marriage

You want a Republican dominated House, and Senate to decide?

Do you expect me to believe your devotion to the Constitution weighs more heavily in your desire to see the Republican dominated congress make that decision...than the obvious fact that your side would decide the way you want?

If a constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage bans were to be created, then you'd have no problem?

If a constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage were to be created, how would that affect your position?

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

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

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

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

It'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.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

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

 

[Votto]

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.

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

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

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.

 

[kaz]

That isn't the point. The point is that the left want the progressive taxes and death tax, then you want to let your pets off of paying them.

The other financial point was how Democrats use that same argument. For example, on the government shutdown. That Obama was so incompetent he spent more shutting down government than operating it became an attack on Republicans for costing money. The Republicans wanted spending cuts, but they weren't allowed to cost government any money to get them. Leftists have endless contradictions, hypocrisies and double standards, and you don't get it when that's pointed out.

Just so you know, my actual view on gay government marriage is that as long as it's done Constitutionally through the legislature, then I don't care about it any more or less than any other government marriage

You want a Republican dominated House, and Senate to decide?

Do you expect me to believe your devotion to the Constitution weighs more heavily in your desire to see the Republican dominated congress make that decision...than the obvious fact that your side would decide the way you want?

If a constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage bans were to be created, then you'd have no problem?

If a constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage were to be created, how would that affect your position?

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

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

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

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

It'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

 

[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

 

[JakeStarkey]

Kaz and his fellow libertarians will not be permitted to under cut the rule of law.

 

[Votto]

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.

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

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

OK.

 

[toxicmedia]

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

That is a bunch of back seat driving.

The convenient thing about "woulda coulda shoulda" and I have that in quotes not because you said it...is that all your "if onlys" never stood the test of reality.

Our history is replete with morally just Supreme Court decisions that prevented certain states from enforcing unjust rule of law. I'm not concerned with your moral outrage towards Supreme Court decisions if that outrage prevents women from being oppressed by Bible thumpers.

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.

Our country is inconsistent.

Hypocrisy is just fine within the context of free markets.

You're right that I just want to win, but don't kid yourself...all this moral outrage over inconsistency is simply drama.

As far as how America really works....grow up, or you'll live a perpetually unfulfilled life waiting for everyone to play fair.