Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[kaz]

Wow, a liberal automaton thinks my thread is a "monumental failure." Wow, that hurts. OK, it doesn't, but I tried, I really did.

BTW, you don't know what a strawman is, it made no sense if you read my OP. Who's view did I misrepresent? You are an idiot, you're on Google dumb ass, just type in "definition {word you don't know}" and it'll be defined for you. Then do the same for the words in the definition you don't know until you're clear on it all

Of course it's a fail. How can it not be given all of the false premises you based it on?

It's based on a false premise that marriage is about procreation. It's not .... it's about the pursuit of happiness.

It's based on a false premise that the government provides tax breaks to married couples because they procreate and questions why same-sex marriages should receive that same tax break since they don't procreate. It doesn't ... the tax laws regarding marriage are for being married and has nothing to do with procreation. The government does have additional benefits for having children, and those tax breaks have nothing to do with marriage.

It's based on a false premise that gay couples don't procreate. They do ... While they can't procreate naturally with each other, there are other methods in which they do, such as artificial insemination.

And despite all of your false premises, you still tried desperately to salvage your thread by kazzing your way through, but even then, the premise of your OP was also laid to rest with the simple answer, equality under the law.

This thread is pretty much hundreds of pages of making an ass of you since your OP was bullshit to begin with.

You haven't done the test I told you to try. Ask random people not involved in the discussion if they think marriage and lower tax rates are motivated by the likely hood that they will have children or if they think like you do that people already pooling resources and saving money should get an additional tax cut by government

Everyone gets child related tax breaks, married or not.

Exactly, and straight or gay. So that isn't what the thread is about. Gays get tax breaks for raising children. The thread is about having them

So you want to eliminate all marriage tax breaks from all married couples who don't have children.

Why didn't you say that in the OP.

Strawman, also asked and answered dozens of times. I will answer it again though if you ask without being snotty, Major Burns

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

So people don't marry as a pursuit of happiness?

Non sequitur

Is that a yes or a no? If getting married is not an example of the pursuit of happiness,

give us examples that ARE,

and prove the difference.

Non sequiturs are rabbit holes, I'm not following you down one. Address the actual discussion and the points made

You're the one who claimed that 'pursuit of happiness' is an inalienable right.

'Pursuit of happiness' is a generalization. If you can make a case that getting married is not a specific example of the general 'pursuit of happiness',

then do so.

Otherwise shut up.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Of course it's a fail. How can it not be given all of the false premises you based it on?

It's based on a false premise that marriage is about procreation. It's not .... it's about the pursuit of happiness.

It's based on a false premise that the government provides tax breaks to married couples because they procreate and questions why same-sex marriages should receive that same tax break since they don't procreate. It doesn't ... the tax laws regarding marriage are for being married and has nothing to do with procreation. The government does have additional benefits for having children, and those tax breaks have nothing to do with marriage.

It's based on a false premise that gay couples don't procreate. They do ... While they can't procreate naturally with each other, there are other methods in which they do, such as artificial insemination.

And despite all of your false premises, you still tried desperately to salvage your thread by kazzing your way through, but even then, the premise of your OP was also laid to rest with the simple answer, equality under the law.

This thread is pretty much hundreds of pages of making an ass of you since your OP was bullshit to begin with.

You haven't done the test I told you to try. Ask random people not involved in the discussion if they think marriage and lower tax rates are motivated by the likely hood that they will have children or if they think like you do that people already pooling resources and saving money should get an additional tax cut by government

Everyone gets child related tax breaks, married or not.

Exactly, and straight or gay. So that isn't what the thread is about. Gays get tax breaks for raising children. The thread is about having them

So you want to eliminate all marriage tax breaks from all married couples who don't have children.

Why didn't you say that in the OP.

Strawman, also asked and answered dozens of times. I will answer it again though if you ask without being snotty, Major Burns

You know you only had to lose this argument once. It's a mystery why you insist on losing it over and over again.

 

[kaz]

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.

So people don't marry as a pursuit of happiness?

Non sequitur

Is that a yes or a no? If getting married is not an example of the pursuit of happiness,

give us examples that ARE,

and prove the difference.

Non sequiturs are rabbit holes, I'm not following you down one. Address the actual discussion and the points made

You're the one who claimed that 'pursuit of happiness' is an inalienable right.

No, that was bripat

'Pursuit of happiness' is a generalization. If you can make a case that getting married is not a specific example of the general 'pursuit of happiness',

then do so.

Otherwise shut up.

Again, you are an idiot. I said the pursuit of happiness is a concept, not a legal basis for anything. I said life, liberty and property are rights, they are in the Constitution. I said the DOI is not a legal basis for rights, it's only a concept

 

[kaz]

You haven't done the test I told you to try. Ask random people not involved in the discussion if they think marriage and lower tax rates are motivated by the likely hood that they will have children or if they think like you do that people already pooling resources and saving money should get an additional tax cut by government

Everyone gets child related tax breaks, married or not.

Exactly, and straight or gay. So that isn't what the thread is about. Gays get tax breaks for raising children. The thread is about having them

So you want to eliminate all marriage tax breaks from all married couples who don't have children.

Why didn't you say that in the OP.

Strawman, also asked and answered dozens of times. I will answer it again though if you ask without being snotty, Major Burns

You know you only had to lose this argument once. It's a mystery why you insist on losing it over and over again.

You consistently select snotty over content, Frank

 

[NYcarbineer]

So people don't marry as a pursuit of happiness?

Non sequitur

Is that a yes or a no? If getting married is not an example of the pursuit of happiness,

give us examples that ARE,

and prove the difference.

Non sequiturs are rabbit holes, I'm not following you down one. Address the actual discussion and the points made

You're the one who claimed that 'pursuit of happiness' is an inalienable right.

No, that was bripat

'Pursuit of happiness' is a generalization. If you can make a case that getting married is not a specific example of the general 'pursuit of happiness',

then do so.

Otherwise shut up.

Again, you are an idiot. I said the pursuit of happiness is a concept, not a legal basis for anything. I said life, liberty and property are rights, they are in the Constitution. I said the DOI is not a legal basis for rights, it's only a concept

Ok, so you disagree with bripat. You don't believe marriage falls under the category of pursuit of happiness. What does?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Everyone gets child related tax breaks, married or not.

Exactly, and straight or gay. So that isn't what the thread is about. Gays get tax breaks for raising children. The thread is about having them

So you want to eliminate all marriage tax breaks from all married couples who don't have children.

Why didn't you say that in the OP.

Strawman, also asked and answered dozens of times. I will answer it again though if you ask without being snotty, Major Burns

You know you only had to lose this argument once. It's a mystery why you insist on losing it over and over again.

You consistently select snotty over content, Frank

If you won't state your position you have no position. If you choose to carry on the conversation for hundreds of posts then it's up to you to restate your position .

 

[Seawytch]

Wow, a liberal automaton thinks my thread is a "monumental failure." Wow, that hurts. OK, it doesn't, but I tried, I really did.

BTW, you don't know what a strawman is, it made no sense if you read my OP. Who's view did I misrepresent? You are an idiot, you're on Google dumb ass, just type in "definition {word you don't know}" and it'll be defined for you. Then do the same for the words in the definition you don't know until you're clear on it all

Of course it's a fail. How can it not be given all of the false premises you based it on?

It's based on a false premise that marriage is about procreation. It's not .... it's about the pursuit of happiness.

It's based on a false premise that the government provides tax breaks to married couples because they procreate and questions why same-sex marriages should receive that same tax break since they don't procreate. It doesn't ... the tax laws regarding marriage are for being married and has nothing to do with procreation. The government does have additional benefits for having children, and those tax breaks have nothing to do with marriage.

It's based on a false premise that gay couples don't procreate. They do ... While they can't procreate naturally with each other, there are other methods in which they do, such as artificial insemination.

And despite all of your false premises, you still tried desperately to salvage your thread by kazzing your way through, but even then, the premise of your OP was also laid to rest with the simple answer, equality under the law.

This thread is pretty much hundreds of pages of making an ass of you since your OP was bullshit to begin with.

You haven't done the test I told you to try. Ask random people not involved in the discussion if they think marriage and lower tax rates are motivated by the likely hood that they will have children or if they think like you do that people already pooling resources and saving money should get an additional tax cut by government

Everyone gets child related tax breaks, married or not.

Exactly, and straight or gay. So that isn't what the thread is about. Gays get tax breaks for raising children. The thread is about having them

So you want to eliminate all marriage tax breaks from all married couples who don't have children.

Why didn't you say that in the OP.

Because he'd get no validation from the anti gay bigots.

 

[Faun]

The right to pursuit of happiness is in the Declaration of Independence. I keep pointing that out and you keep repeating it

Moron, I never said the right to pursue happiness is not mentioned in the DoI. What I said is the right to pursue happiness comes from G-d, not the DoI.

.... g'head ... this is where you express confusion again and ask if that makes us a theocracy because you don't know the answer to that question.

- So we get the right to pursue happiness from God

- But we are not a theocracy

Um...I'll just stop there and let your own statement hang you

Already explained that recognizing G-d does not establish the U.S. as a theocracy. Ya think anyone is surprised to see you don't possess the required acumen to understand?

This should be good .... where do you think the right to pursue happiness comes from ... ?

Of course it does, if that is the basis of your argument, which you are saying it is.

I think God was an inspiration to many, but the Constitution is the basis of our law. The Constitution says life, liberty and property, which is a great legal basis for the pursuit of happiness, which is too vague to put in the basis of our law, the Constitution. Pursuit of happiness was perfectly reasonable to put in the DOI, which is just a reason we are seceding and not a basis for our laws.

But you argue that the pursuit of happiness is the legal justification for forcing government to recognize and fund gay mating. And that it comes from God. For that to be true, God is the basis of our laws, not just an inspiration for them, makes us a theocracy. You can't have it both ways.

You may now proceed to not even grasp the discussion, as you do in every other discussion

I knew this would be fun.

Nowhere in that diatribe do you actually answer the question .... where do you think the right to pursue comes from?

 

[Faun]

Great ... back to, I know you are but what am I."

I like when I piss you off, you make even less sense than you normally do

Whassamatter ... ? You run out of tissues already?

Jeez, calm down. It's just a message board, no need to get so upset. Maybe you need RKM's stick removal instructions. Grab, pull, remove. Stop getting so mad, dude

That you think I'm upset or mad is yet more evidence of your dementia. You entertain me, nothing more.

God you are stupid. You keep telling me that I'm upset, so I started telling you that you're mad.

I even told you I was doing that.

I think telling each other how we feel is retarded, but you keep doing it. So I am demonstrating that to you. You keep agreeing with me, and continuing to do it.

Is there any depth to your idiocy at all?

Great. you once again inform the forum you're brain stopped developing after age 4.

 

[Faun]

So people don't marry as a pursuit of happiness?

Non sequitur

Is that a yes or a no? If getting married is not an example of the pursuit of happiness,

give us examples that ARE,

and prove the difference.

Non sequiturs are rabbit holes, I'm not following you down one. Address the actual discussion and the points made

You're the one who claimed that 'pursuit of happiness' is an inalienable right.

No, that was bripat

... to which you agreed.

 

[RKMBrown]

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

Uhmm... your logic is flawed. Just as liberty is not the liberty to take liberty away. Marriage is not a contract between a person and himself. Again unless you have something to tell everyone, most people don't have two identities for themselves in which they can demand a marriage between them-self.

I suggest you look up the definition of "between" cause you seem to be confused.

Again, as for your weird fascination with limiting tax breaks that gay people may or may not get. Dude, get over it. GAYS ALREADY GET ALL THE TAX BREAKS THAT EVERYONE ELSE GETS. Gay marriage issue is not about tax breaks. If you want to change the tax rates to the same for everyone... go for it. Has nothing to do with being gay and everything to do with how the tax breaks are written in the tax code.

Again there is no such thing as government marriage. Marriage is between people. Government is a concept not a person. Again you seem to be very confused about the use of English.

Marriages are contracts. Look it up. NVM you lack the ability. Here's the link:
Marriage Wex Legal Dictionary Encyclopedia LII Legal Information Institute
and here's the cite:
Marriage Definition
The legal union of a couple as spouses. The basic elements of a marriage are: (1) the parties' legal ability to marry each other, (2) mutual consent of the parties, and (3) a marriage contract as required by law.

To call government marriage a "contract" is a complete bastardization of the word "contract." A contract is a quid pro quo agreement between two parties. Government marriage is a government program:

- Contracts are negotiated between the people involved, government marriage is defined by government, not even a party as you keep saying a marriage so called "contract" is between the two parties.
- Contracts do not come with outside perks, they are a quid pro quo between the parties. OK, if you two enter into this government program, er, "contract," then government will give you tax perks, and exemption from the death tax, put requirements on employers and insurance companies for you, ...

No other contract works remotely like that, and marriage, despite your liberal bigotry, has gone on for most of the evolution of man without government involvement. Is that a mind **** to your, but government has to give it to them, left wing brain or what?

So why should individual people be denied access to government programs just because they are asses who can't get married or just don't want to? Why should government ever treat any of it's citizens differently? It shouldn't

There is no such thing as government marriage. Again, you have gone off the deep end.

Are drivers licenses government drivers licenses? No. If it's not a government marriage, then how can they stop polygamists and relatives and singles from qualifying to get a marriage license? There's a law against polygamy, if you get caught you are subject to the law. We hire people to work for us to enforce our laws. Why to end it do you need to follow government rules again and go to government courts? Because that's how the legal system works. Why does the license say it's issued by government? Because it's issued by the government. And if it's a contract between two people, why does government define the terms of the arrangement? There are some laws defining some terms of the arrangement, for other terms the two people may define their own terms such as prenuptial agreements. Why does government also provide perks, tax breaks, exemption from the death tax, even benefits from employers and insurance companies? Our government employees work for us... we elect them based on whether they will write tax code that will provide us with tax breaks because we don't like to be taxed.

I provided the legal definition of marriage in the united states of america. As stated, one of the basic elements of marriage other than legal ability to marry each other and consent of both parties, is the "marriage contract" required by law. Said contract is normally done through the signing and recording of the marriage contract. The process typically goes getting your marriage license, getting married, and an approved official recording the agreement of the contract. Yes, marriage is a contract, currently it's a contract between two consenting adults in all of the states.

That government calls it a contract so it's a contract is a terrible argument for a self declared non liberal to make. They call social security payments an investment too. How does a "conservative" not know that one thing government does very well is lie? With of course "two consenting adults" being defined by ... government. And the irony that man/woman and two are equally arbitrary standards. Yours isn't better, just different

Wrong mine is correct. Yours is incorrect. Words matter. If we don't use the same meanings for words, what's the point of using English? I try not to redefine the commonly understood definitions of terms to suit my politics. Why do you think doing that is gonna help your cause? Redefining terms to the opposite of the intended meaning makes conversations nonsensical.

These contracts come with some level of negotiation. For example, pre-nuptuals, custody agreements etc.. As with other types of contracts, government can be used in proceedings wrt. differences of opinion about the marriage contract. You may have heard about things like divorces that pertain to the marriage contract. You may have heard about things like divorce papers that you sign for dissolving the contract.

True, but you cannot modify that which government dictates, and it's even up to government what is enforceable and how in those agreements.

Again, government employees work for us. Don't like our laws, elected different lawmakers.

Again, as for the tax perks that is an IRS thing regarding check boxes on a form for selecting which tax rate table applies to your combined income. Good bad or indifferent, the assumption in tradition is that married folk combine their income because they share the assets via the marriage contract and as such should be treated differently in some respects if they desire to do so. The other tax breaks that apply to the "shared" assets and liabilities also make such tax issues complex. For example, if you treat the married couple separately, who gets the tax break for the taxes paid to the states? Who gets the tax break for sending the kids to school? What about AMT taxes do they not apply if you split the income of the married couple? What about education incentives, which parent gets that? What about dependents, which kid are they dependent too? Thus... married couples are treated as a taxed family... not as individuals.

If you make taxes flat and end deductions, then all those problems go away. Deductions are just more government discrimination. I support flat taxes on revenue (the fair tax), but whatever they tax should be flat

I support sales and property taxes that exclude food products, medicine, and include a deduction for your main house that covers the minimum amount of shelter necessary. I'm against all forms of income tax as they are no different than indentured servitude.

Thus, your bitching about marriage perks, is really just you bitching about the "combining" of income and deductions for federal tax purposes.

Just so you know, I have two modes, serious and fun. You wrote a serious post and ended with the snotty conclusion. I almost never respond seriously to those posts. You put a lot of effort I thought into a genuine post before concluding with this, so I decided to make an exception, but just so you know, you should either not bother to put in the effort or skip the snotty shot at the end.

I call em as I see em.. a snotty conclusion was well earned up to this point, no?

Before you bluster you don't care, I don't either, this is an informational message only. It's your choice which way we go. One thing I know is I can't control that, my being serious does not lead to serious replies

The issues of tax breaks for marriage based on the combined income of the married couple... and who is allowed to get married by law are two different animals. You've tried to tie them together. But they are not tied together. No amount of redefining words is gonna make them the same animal.

In blue.

 

[kaz]

Non sequitur

Is that a yes or a no? If getting married is not an example of the pursuit of happiness,

give us examples that ARE,

and prove the difference.

Non sequiturs are rabbit holes, I'm not following you down one. Address the actual discussion and the points made

You're the one who claimed that 'pursuit of happiness' is an inalienable right.

No, that was bripat

'Pursuit of happiness' is a generalization. If you can make a case that getting married is not a specific example of the general 'pursuit of happiness',

then do so.

Otherwise shut up.

Again, you are an idiot. I said the pursuit of happiness is a concept, not a legal basis for anything. I said life, liberty and property are rights, they are in the Constitution. I said the DOI is not a legal basis for rights, it's only a concept

Ok, so you disagree with bripat. You don't believe marriage falls under the category of pursuit of happiness. What does?

I don't know how to explain anything to anyone as outright stupid as you are. You are just babbling. You are taking words used in the discussion and putting them in random order. Maybe if you go back to one of my posts you can ask me something based on something I ever said, because none of this has to do with anything I said

 

[kaz]

Exactly, and straight or gay. So that isn't what the thread is about. Gays get tax breaks for raising children. The thread is about having them

So you want to eliminate all marriage tax breaks from all married couples who don't have children.

Why didn't you say that in the OP.

Strawman, also asked and answered dozens of times. I will answer it again though if you ask without being snotty, Major Burns

You know you only had to lose this argument once. It's a mystery why you insist on losing it over and over again.

You consistently select snotty over content, Frank

If you won't state your position you have no position. If you choose to carry on the conversation for hundreds of posts then it's up to you to restate your position .

I've repeatedly restated my position, and I offered to do it again. I just said to ask me without being a dick while you do it. Is that really so hard?

Here's how you do it, just say kaz, what do you think of ...

 

[kaz]

Of course it's a fail. How can it not be given all of the false premises you based it on?

It's based on a false premise that marriage is about procreation. It's not .... it's about the pursuit of happiness.

It's based on a false premise that the government provides tax breaks to married couples because they procreate and questions why same-sex marriages should receive that same tax break since they don't procreate. It doesn't ... the tax laws regarding marriage are for being married and has nothing to do with procreation. The government does have additional benefits for having children, and those tax breaks have nothing to do with marriage.

It's based on a false premise that gay couples don't procreate. They do ... While they can't procreate naturally with each other, there are other methods in which they do, such as artificial insemination.

And despite all of your false premises, you still tried desperately to salvage your thread by kazzing your way through, but even then, the premise of your OP was also laid to rest with the simple answer, equality under the law.

This thread is pretty much hundreds of pages of making an ass of you since your OP was bullshit to begin with.

You haven't done the test I told you to try. Ask random people not involved in the discussion if they think marriage and lower tax rates are motivated by the likely hood that they will have children or if they think like you do that people already pooling resources and saving money should get an additional tax cut by government

Everyone gets child related tax breaks, married or not.

Exactly, and straight or gay. So that isn't what the thread is about. Gays get tax breaks for raising children. The thread is about having them

So you want to eliminate all marriage tax breaks from all married couples who don't have children.

Why didn't you say that in the OP.

Because he'd get no validation from the anti gay bigots.

Yes, Jane, you ignorant slut, I do of course need to post my position on every facet of every position in every post.

A standard you of course apply to yourself and your lib buds...

LOL, I crack myself up

 

[kaz]

The right to pursuit of happiness is in the Declaration of Independence. I keep pointing that out and you keep repeating it

Moron, I never said the right to pursue happiness is not mentioned in the DoI. What I said is the right to pursue happiness comes from G-d, not the DoI.

.... g'head ... this is where you express confusion again and ask if that makes us a theocracy because you don't know the answer to that question.

- So we get the right to pursue happiness from God

- But we are not a theocracy

Um...I'll just stop there and let your own statement hang you

Already explained that recognizing G-d does not establish the U.S. as a theocracy. Ya think anyone is surprised to see you don't possess the required acumen to understand?

This should be good .... where do you think the right to pursue happiness comes from ... ?

Of course it does, if that is the basis of your argument, which you are saying it is.

I think God was an inspiration to many, but the Constitution is the basis of our law. The Constitution says life, liberty and property, which is a great legal basis for the pursuit of happiness, which is too vague to put in the basis of our law, the Constitution. Pursuit of happiness was perfectly reasonable to put in the DOI, which is just a reason we are seceding and not a basis for our laws.

But you argue that the pursuit of happiness is the legal justification for forcing government to recognize and fund gay mating. And that it comes from God. For that to be true, God is the basis of our laws, not just an inspiration for them, makes us a theocracy. You can't have it both ways.

You may now proceed to not even grasp the discussion, as you do in every other discussion

I knew this would be fun.

Nowhere in that diatribe do you actually answer the question .... where do you think the right to pursue comes from?

When you said "the right to pursue" what exactly did you mean?

 

[kaz]

I like when I piss you off, you make even less sense than you normally do

Whassamatter ... ? You run out of tissues already?

Jeez, calm down. It's just a message board, no need to get so upset. Maybe you need RKM's stick removal instructions. Grab, pull, remove. Stop getting so mad, dude

That you think I'm upset or mad is yet more evidence of your dementia. You entertain me, nothing more.

God you are stupid. You keep telling me that I'm upset, so I started telling you that you're mad.

I even told you I was doing that.

I think telling each other how we feel is retarded, but you keep doing it. So I am demonstrating that to you. You keep agreeing with me, and continuing to do it.

Is there any depth to your idiocy at all?

Great. you once again inform the forum you're brain stopped developing after age 4.

Yes, you speak for everyone in the forum, they hang on your every word. Clearly no one but me has disagreed with you. How do you get your head through doorways? And why do you so crave the validation of others?

 

[kaz]

Non sequitur

Is that a yes or a no? If getting married is not an example of the pursuit of happiness,

give us examples that ARE,

and prove the difference.

Non sequiturs are rabbit holes, I'm not following you down one. Address the actual discussion and the points made

You're the one who claimed that 'pursuit of happiness' is an inalienable right.

No, that was bripat

... to which you agreed.

Not exactly, show me what quote you are referring to. I said the right to pursue happiness is not a legal right, the right to life, liberty and property are. The right to pursue happiness is too vague, and the right to life, liberty and property from a legal basis covers it pretty well

 

[NYcarbineer]

So you want to eliminate all marriage tax breaks from all married couples who don't have children.

Why didn't you say that in the OP.

Strawman, also asked and answered dozens of times. I will answer it again though if you ask without being snotty, Major Burns

You know you only had to lose this argument once. It's a mystery why you insist on losing it over and over again.

You consistently select snotty over content, Frank

If you won't state your position you have no position. If you choose to carry on the conversation for hundreds of posts then it's up to you to restate your position .

I've repeatedly restated my position, and I offered to do it again. I just said to ask me without being a dick while you do it. Is that really so hard?

Here's how you do it, just say kaz, what do you think of ...

You put a lot of effort into trying to get people to take orders from you.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Is that a yes or a no? If getting married is not an example of the pursuit of happiness,

give us examples that ARE,

and prove the difference.

Non sequiturs are rabbit holes, I'm not following you down one. Address the actual discussion and the points made

You're the one who claimed that 'pursuit of happiness' is an inalienable right.

No, that was bripat

... to which you agreed.

Not exactly, show me what quote you are referring to. I said the right to pursue happiness is not a legal right, the right to life, liberty and property are. The right to pursue happiness is too vague, and the right to life, liberty and property from a legal basis covers it pretty well

The D of I actually says,

'AMONG THOSE, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...' meaning that those three only represented some of the inalienable rights.

Eh?