Bill O’Reilly and Andrea Tantaros misconstrue 14th Amendment and “equal protection of the laws”.

[Redfish]

Marriage is the joining of two people of opposite sexes. gay marriage is an oxymoron, supported by morons.

Since polygamy is defined as a form of marriage, you, as usual, don't know what you're talking about.

If a union of two gays of the same sex is a marriage then a union of 4 women and 6 men is a marriage. You can't have one without condoning the other.

1. We've had civil monogamy without civil polygamy for how many years?

2. If dozens of state governments have already established civil same sex marriage as legal/legitimate,

how can you claim it doesn't exist?

I am telling you that if you get a supreme court ruling that validates gay marriage using equality, and discrimination as justifications, then there is absolutely no defense that can be brought against all forms of polygamy, because the polygamists will use exactly the same legal rationale that the gays used, and they will win because the precedent will be established.

if thats where you want our society to go, then continue supporting calling a gay union a marriage. Because what we call it is the crux of the issue.

Polygamists could have used that against monogamy 100 years ago

yes, and if gay marriage is condoned by the feds, then polygamy will also be condoned. There will be no valid legal argument against it

 

[NYcarbineer]

Since polygamy is defined as a form of marriage, you, as usual, don't know what you're talking about.

If a union of two gays of the same sex is a marriage then a union of 4 women and 6 men is a marriage. You can't have one without condoning the other.

1. We've had civil monogamy without civil polygamy for how many years?

2. If dozens of state governments have already established civil same sex marriage as legal/legitimate,

how can you claim it doesn't exist?

I am telling you that if you get a supreme court ruling that validates gay marriage using equality, and discrimination as justifications, then there is absolutely no defense that can be brought against all forms of polygamy, because the polygamists will use exactly the same legal rationale that the gays used, and they will win because the precedent will be established.

if thats where you want our society to go, then continue supporting calling a gay union a marriage. Because what we call it is the crux of the issue.

Polygamists could have used that against monogamy 100 years ago

yes, and if gay marriage is condoned by the feds, then polygamy will also be condoned. There will be no valid legal argument against it

That makes no sense. Monogamy and Polygamy are two distinct forms of marriage, as the Supreme Court has already determined.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Since polygamy is defined as a form of marriage, you, as usual, don't know what you're talking about.

If a union of two gays of the same sex is a marriage then a union of 4 women and 6 men is a marriage. You can't have one without condoning the other.

1. We've had civil monogamy without civil polygamy for how many years?

2. If dozens of state governments have already established civil same sex marriage as legal/legitimate,

how can you claim it doesn't exist?

I am telling you that if you get a supreme court ruling that validates gay marriage using equality, and discrimination as justifications, then there is absolutely no defense that can be brought against all forms of polygamy, because the polygamists will use exactly the same legal rationale that the gays used, and they will win because the precedent will be established.

if thats where you want our society to go, then continue supporting calling a gay union a marriage. Because what we call it is the crux of the issue.

Polygamists could have used that against monogamy 100 years ago

And they did.
next.

And they lost.

 

[Redfish]

If a union of two gays of the same sex is a marriage then a union of 4 women and 6 men is a marriage. You can't have one without condoning the other.

1. We've had civil monogamy without civil polygamy for how many years?

2. If dozens of state governments have already established civil same sex marriage as legal/legitimate,

how can you claim it doesn't exist?

I am telling you that if you get a supreme court ruling that validates gay marriage using equality, and discrimination as justifications, then there is absolutely no defense that can be brought against all forms of polygamy, because the polygamists will use exactly the same legal rationale that the gays used, and they will win because the precedent will be established.

if thats where you want our society to go, then continue supporting calling a gay union a marriage. Because what we call it is the crux of the issue.

Polygamists could have used that against monogamy 100 years ago

And they did.
next.

And they lost.

yes, but now they will have the gay marriage rulings as precedent, and they will win.

 

[Redfish]

If a union of two gays of the same sex is a marriage then a union of 4 women and 6 men is a marriage. You can't have one without condoning the other.

1. We've had civil monogamy without civil polygamy for how many years?

2. If dozens of state governments have already established civil same sex marriage as legal/legitimate,

how can you claim it doesn't exist?

I am telling you that if you get a supreme court ruling that validates gay marriage using equality, and discrimination as justifications, then there is absolutely no defense that can be brought against all forms of polygamy, because the polygamists will use exactly the same legal rationale that the gays used, and they will win because the precedent will be established.

if thats where you want our society to go, then continue supporting calling a gay union a marriage. Because what we call it is the crux of the issue.

Polygamists could have used that against monogamy 100 years ago

yes, and if gay marriage is condoned by the feds, then polygamy will also be condoned. There will be no valid legal argument against it

That makes no sense. Monogamy and Polygamy are two distinct forms of marriage, as the Supreme Court has already determined.

Yep, and gay marriage and heterosexual marriage are two distinct forms of marriage. Gay marriage will lead to legalized polygamy, book it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Since polygamy is defined as a form of marriage, you, as usual, don't know what you're talking about.

If a union of two gays of the same sex is a marriage then a union of 4 women and 6 men is a marriage. You can't have one without condoning the other.

1. We've had civil monogamy without civil polygamy for how many years?

2. If dozens of state governments have already established civil same sex marriage as legal/legitimate,

how can you claim it doesn't exist?

I am telling you that if you get a supreme court ruling that validates gay marriage using equality, and discrimination as justifications, then there is absolutely no defense that can be brought against all forms of polygamy, because the polygamists will use exactly the same legal rationale that the gays used, and they will win because the precedent will be established.

if thats where you want our society to go, then continue supporting calling a gay union a marriage. Because what we call it is the crux of the issue.

Polygamists could have used that against monogamy 100 years ago

And they did.
next.

Reynolds in Reynolds v United States used the religious freedom argument, and lost.

 

[SwimExpert]

How long have you been trying to work that word into a conversation?

Probably about 10 minutes. Someone called him out for his stupidity and bullshit, used a fancy word Rabbi didn't understand, and after googling it he decided he's through it around at someone for shits and giggles.

 

[The Rabbi]

If a union of two gays of the same sex is a marriage then a union of 4 women and 6 men is a marriage. You can't have one without condoning the other.

1. We've had civil monogamy without civil polygamy for how many years?

2. If dozens of state governments have already established civil same sex marriage as legal/legitimate,

how can you claim it doesn't exist?

I am telling you that if you get a supreme court ruling that validates gay marriage using equality, and discrimination as justifications, then there is absolutely no defense that can be brought against all forms of polygamy, because the polygamists will use exactly the same legal rationale that the gays used, and they will win because the precedent will be established.

if thats where you want our society to go, then continue supporting calling a gay union a marriage. Because what we call it is the crux of the issue.

Polygamists could have used that against monogamy 100 years ago

And they did.
next.

Reynolds in Reynolds v United States used the religious freedom argument, and lost.

You wrote they could have used that argument I pointed out they did in fact. That they lost on it is irrelevant. The argument is there. And it is coming back.

 

[The Rabbi]

How long have you been trying to work that word into a conversation?

Probably about 10 minutes. Someone called him out for his stupidity and bullshit, used a fancy word Rabbi didn't understand, and after googling it he decided he's through it around at someone for shits and giggles.

The butthurt is strong in this one.

 

[Redfish]

If a union of two gays of the same sex is a marriage then a union of 4 women and 6 men is a marriage. You can't have one without condoning the other.

1. We've had civil monogamy without civil polygamy for how many years?

2. If dozens of state governments have already established civil same sex marriage as legal/legitimate,

how can you claim it doesn't exist?

I am telling you that if you get a supreme court ruling that validates gay marriage using equality, and discrimination as justifications, then there is absolutely no defense that can be brought against all forms of polygamy, because the polygamists will use exactly the same legal rationale that the gays used, and they will win because the precedent will be established.

if thats where you want our society to go, then continue supporting calling a gay union a marriage. Because what we call it is the crux of the issue.

Polygamists could have used that against monogamy 100 years ago

And they did.
next.

Reynolds in Reynolds v United States used the religious freedom argument, and lost.

Yes, but they did not have the gay marriage precedent back then.

 

[NYcarbineer]

1. We've had civil monogamy without civil polygamy for how many years?

2. If dozens of state governments have already established civil same sex marriage as legal/legitimate,

how can you claim it doesn't exist?

I am telling you that if you get a supreme court ruling that validates gay marriage using equality, and discrimination as justifications, then there is absolutely no defense that can be brought against all forms of polygamy, because the polygamists will use exactly the same legal rationale that the gays used, and they will win because the precedent will be established.

if thats where you want our society to go, then continue supporting calling a gay union a marriage. Because what we call it is the crux of the issue.

Polygamists could have used that against monogamy 100 years ago

yes, and if gay marriage is condoned by the feds, then polygamy will also be condoned. There will be no valid legal argument against it

That makes no sense. Monogamy and Polygamy are two distinct forms of marriage, as the Supreme Court has already determined.

Yep, and gay marriage and heterosexual marriage are two distinct forms of marriage. Gay marriage will lead to legalized polygamy, book it.

1. We've had civil monogamy without civil polygamy for how many years?

2. If dozens of state governments have already established civil same sex marriage as legal/legitimate,

how can you claim it doesn't exist?

I am telling you that if you get a supreme court ruling that validates gay marriage using equality, and discrimination as justifications, then there is absolutely no defense that can be brought against all forms of polygamy, because the polygamists will use exactly the same legal rationale that the gays used, and they will win because the precedent will be established.

if thats where you want our society to go, then continue supporting calling a gay union a marriage. Because what we call it is the crux of the issue.

Polygamists could have used that against monogamy 100 years ago

And they did.
next.

Reynolds in Reynolds v United States used the religious freedom argument, and lost.

Yes, but they did not have the gay marriage precedent back then.

Gay marriage is not a religious argument.

BTW, why didn't the Mormons win? I thought religious freedom was trump in the Constitution...

 

[rightwinger]

what does gay marriage have to do with biology?

Procreation, yes. But marriage is not defined as a means to procreate.

Marriage is the joining of two people of opposite sexes. gay marriage is an oxymoron, supported by morons.

Since polygamy is defined as a form of marriage, you, as usual, don't know what you're talking about.

If a union of two gays of the same sex is a marriage then a union of 4 women and 6 men is a marriage. You can't have one without condoning the other.

1. We've had civil monogamy without civil polygamy for how many years?

2. If dozens of state governments have already established civil same sex marriage as legal/legitimate,

how can you claim it doesn't exist?

I am telling you that if you get a supreme court ruling that validates gay marriage using equality, and discrimination as justifications, then there is absolutely no defense that can be brought against all forms of polygamy, because the polygamists will use exactly the same legal rationale that the gays used, and they will win because the precedent will be established.

if thats where you want our society to go, then continue supporting calling a gay union a marriage. Because what we call it is the crux of the issue.

What do you care so much if there is polygamy?

If it is consensual agreement between consenting adults, how does it harm society?

 

[Redfish]

I am telling you that if you get a supreme court ruling that validates gay marriage using equality, and discrimination as justifications, then there is absolutely no defense that can be brought against all forms of polygamy, because the polygamists will use exactly the same legal rationale that the gays used, and they will win because the precedent will be established.

if thats where you want our society to go, then continue supporting calling a gay union a marriage. Because what we call it is the crux of the issue.

Polygamists could have used that against monogamy 100 years ago

yes, and if gay marriage is condoned by the feds, then polygamy will also be condoned. There will be no valid legal argument against it

That makes no sense. Monogamy and Polygamy are two distinct forms of marriage, as the Supreme Court has already determined.

Yep, and gay marriage and heterosexual marriage are two distinct forms of marriage. Gay marriage will lead to legalized polygamy, book it.

I am telling you that if you get a supreme court ruling that validates gay marriage using equality, and discrimination as justifications, then there is absolutely no defense that can be brought against all forms of polygamy, because the polygamists will use exactly the same legal rationale that the gays used, and they will win because the precedent will be established.

if thats where you want our society to go, then continue supporting calling a gay union a marriage. Because what we call it is the crux of the issue.

Polygamists could have used that against monogamy 100 years ago

And they did.
next.

Reynolds in Reynolds v United States used the religious freedom argument, and lost.

Yes, but they did not have the gay marriage precedent back then.

Gay marriage is not a religious argument.

BTW, why didn't the Mormons win? I thought religious freedom was trump in the Constitution...

next time they will win, because with the gay marriage precedent there will be no viable legal argument against them.

 

[Redfish]

Marriage is the joining of two people of opposite sexes. gay marriage is an oxymoron, supported by morons.

Since polygamy is defined as a form of marriage, you, as usual, don't know what you're talking about.

If a union of two gays of the same sex is a marriage then a union of 4 women and 6 men is a marriage. You can't have one without condoning the other.

1. We've had civil monogamy without civil polygamy for how many years?

2. If dozens of state governments have already established civil same sex marriage as legal/legitimate,

how can you claim it doesn't exist?

I am telling you that if you get a supreme court ruling that validates gay marriage using equality, and discrimination as justifications, then there is absolutely no defense that can be brought against all forms of polygamy, because the polygamists will use exactly the same legal rationale that the gays used, and they will win because the precedent will be established.

if thats where you want our society to go, then continue supporting calling a gay union a marriage. Because what we call it is the crux of the issue.

What do you care so much if there is polygamy?

If it is consensual agreement between consenting adults, how does it harm society?

if you have to ask that then you are too stupid to participate in this discussion. So go away, put on your Jake hat and pop up on some other thread, you have made a complete fool of yourself on this one.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Polygamists could have used that against monogamy 100 years ago

yes, and if gay marriage is condoned by the feds, then polygamy will also be condoned. There will be no valid legal argument against it

That makes no sense. Monogamy and Polygamy are two distinct forms of marriage, as the Supreme Court has already determined.

Yep, and gay marriage and heterosexual marriage are two distinct forms of marriage. Gay marriage will lead to legalized polygamy, book it.

Polygamists could have used that against monogamy 100 years ago

And they did.
next.

Reynolds in Reynolds v United States used the religious freedom argument, and lost.

Yes, but they did not have the gay marriage precedent back then.

Gay marriage is not a religious argument.

BTW, why didn't the Mormons win? I thought religious freedom was trump in the Constitution...

next time they will win, because with the gay marriage precedent there will be no viable legal argument against them.

Opposite sex marriage is already the precedent. Polygamy is opposite sex marriage.

btw, again, why didn't the Mormons win with the religious argument?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Polygamists could have used that against monogamy 100 years ago

yes, and if gay marriage is condoned by the feds, then polygamy will also be condoned. There will be no valid legal argument against it

That makes no sense. Monogamy and Polygamy are two distinct forms of marriage, as the Supreme Court has already determined.

Yep, and gay marriage and heterosexual marriage are two distinct forms of marriage. Gay marriage will lead to legalized polygamy, book it.

Polygamists could have used that against monogamy 100 years ago

And they did.
next.

Reynolds in Reynolds v United States used the religious freedom argument, and lost.

Yes, but they did not have the gay marriage precedent back then.

Gay marriage is not a religious argument.

BTW, why didn't the Mormons win? I thought religious freedom was trump in the Constitution...

next time they will win, because with the gay marriage precedent there will be no viable legal argument against them.

Why hasn't polygamy become legal in the states that now have same sex marriage?

 

[Redfish]

yes, and if gay marriage is condoned by the feds, then polygamy will also be condoned. There will be no valid legal argument against it

That makes no sense. Monogamy and Polygamy are two distinct forms of marriage, as the Supreme Court has already determined.

Yep, and gay marriage and heterosexual marriage are two distinct forms of marriage. Gay marriage will lead to legalized polygamy, book it.

And they did.
next.

Reynolds in Reynolds v United States used the religious freedom argument, and lost.

Yes, but they did not have the gay marriage precedent back then.

Gay marriage is not a religious argument.

BTW, why didn't the Mormons win? I thought religious freedom was trump in the Constitution...

next time they will win, because with the gay marriage precedent there will be no viable legal argument against them.

Opposite sex marriage is already the precedent. Polygamy is opposite sex marriage.

btw, again, why didn't the Mormons win with the religious argument?

wrong, 3 women could marry, it doesn't have to involve both sexes. The mormons lost because there was no legal precedent. Is SCOTUS sanctions gay marriage then there will be plenty of prededents for polygamy of all kinds.

 

[Redfish]

yes, and if gay marriage is condoned by the feds, then polygamy will also be condoned. There will be no valid legal argument against it

That makes no sense. Monogamy and Polygamy are two distinct forms of marriage, as the Supreme Court has already determined.

Yep, and gay marriage and heterosexual marriage are two distinct forms of marriage. Gay marriage will lead to legalized polygamy, book it.

And they did.
next.

Reynolds in Reynolds v United States used the religious freedom argument, and lost.

Yes, but they did not have the gay marriage precedent back then.

Gay marriage is not a religious argument.

BTW, why didn't the Mormons win? I thought religious freedom was trump in the Constitution...

next time they will win, because with the gay marriage precedent there will be no viable legal argument against them.

Why hasn't polygamy become legal in the states that now have same sex marriage?

there hasn't yet been a court challenge, but the ACLU is gearing up for one. Its coming, you asked for it

 

[Redfish]

Can we go back to talking about how hot Tantaros is?

 

[NYcarbineer]

That makes no sense. Monogamy and Polygamy are two distinct forms of marriage, as the Supreme Court has already determined.

Yep, and gay marriage and heterosexual marriage are two distinct forms of marriage. Gay marriage will lead to legalized polygamy, book it.

Reynolds in Reynolds v United States used the religious freedom argument, and lost.

Yes, but they did not have the gay marriage precedent back then.

Gay marriage is not a religious argument.

BTW, why didn't the Mormons win? I thought religious freedom was trump in the Constitution...

next time they will win, because with the gay marriage precedent there will be no viable legal argument against them.

Opposite sex marriage is already the precedent. Polygamy is opposite sex marriage.

btw, again, why didn't the Mormons win with the religious argument?

wrong, 3 women could marry, it doesn't have to involve both sexes. The mormons lost because there was no legal precedent. Is SCOTUS sanctions gay marriage then there will be plenty of prededents for polygamy of all kinds.

Gay marriage is not polygamous. Give me an estimate of how many times I will have to post that before it gets through your head.

Why did the Mormons lose on the religious argument?