Brown Family Pushes Polyamory-Orientation To USSC Ultimately For Marriage Equality: A Poll

[Silhouette]

Clearly the definition of marriage is what we say it is. Thank you for coming around to the fact that the USSC altered the definition.

No more so then when they overturned interracial marriage bans.

Marriage is a social construct that we define to service us. We don't serve it. And when laws are created that that run contrary to constitutional guarantees, the judiciary has an obligation to put the constitution above the law.

Which is what Obergefell was all about.

Agreed Skylar. That's why the Constitution demands that ALL and not just one or two sexual orientations may marry when in Obergefell it Found that it's against the law for states to deny people marriage licenses based on sexual orientation. It's already legal for polyamorists to marry. Thanks for your agreement on that after your impassioned "nobody left out" legal reasoning and "marriage is what we say it is". When "we" means equality under the 14th Amendment, and not just a group of LGBTs blackmailing a judge or Justice based on what THEY say marriage can't be (polyamory etc.).

ie: if "we" say marriage is not as it has historically been with regard to sex (not race in this debate), man/woman, then "we" can also say the historical tradition of "two" is no longer relevant as well when it comes to sex. I think it's hilarious how prude the LGBTs become, how Emily Post they are when it comes to dismantling the word "two" in marriage" but not "man/woman"; as if the latter had more historical precedent and backing than polyamory. As Bucktooth pointed out, polyamory-orientation has far more historical precedent connected to the word "marriage". Two will be a snap to erase. Easier than man/woman for sure..

 

[mdk]

hat's why the Constitution demands that ALL and not just one or two sexual orientations may marry when in Obergefell it Found that it's against the law for states to deny people marriage licenses based on sexual orientation. It's already legal for polyamorists to marry. Thanks for your agreement on that after your impassioned "nobody left out" legal reasoning and "marriage is what we say it is". When "we" means equality under the 14th Amendment, and not just a group of LGBTs blackmailing a judge or Justice based on what THEY say marriage can't be (polyamory etc.).

You can tell how bigamy is legal by all the legal polygamists marriages that are taking place in this nation. Funny how you're suddenly opposed to the religious freedoms when it comes to the Brown family. Kim Davis and the Kleins' get your unwavering support, but the Brown family is left out in the cold. Don't you care about equality and freedom? You can't support one religious freedom and not others.

 

[mdk]

I think it's hilarious how prude the LGBTs become, how Emily Post they are when it comes to dismantling the word "two" in marriage" but not "man/woman"; as if the latter had more historical precedent and backing than polyamory.

I think it's hilarious how suddenly you don't give a shit about religious freedoms the instant they can't be used to harm gay people. I guess the Brown family must find a way to harm gay people if they want your unflappable support. lol

 

[Silhouette]

You can tell how bigamy is legal by all the legal polygamists marriages that are taking place in this nation. Funny how you're suddenly opposed to the religious freedoms when it comes to the Brown family. Kim Davis and the Kleins' get your unwavering support, but the Brown family is left out in the cold. Don't you care about equality and freedom? You can't support one religious freedom and not others.

We're not talking about bigamy. We're talking about polyamory, a sexual orientation. Nothing to do with religious freedom at all. This is about a sexual orientation being denied the right to marry. Not all polyamorists belong to this or that religion. And state laws may no longer discriminate against people marrying based on sexual orientation. So all the bigamy laws were made defunct by Obergefell if they stop polyamorists from marrying. There are laws on the books in many states still, not removed, that say gay marriage is illegal too. But as you would argue, once Obergefell happened, they no longer are applicable. Same with bigamy laws that hurt polyamorist-Americans' civil rights.

 

[mdk]

You can tell how bigamy is legal by all the legal polygamists marriages that are taking place in this nation. Funny how you're suddenly opposed to the religious freedoms when it comes to the Brown family. Kim Davis and the Kleins' get your unwavering support, but the Brown family is left out in the cold. Don't you care about equality and freedom? You can't support one religious freedom and not others.

We're not talking about bigamy. We're talking about polyamory, a sexual orientation. Nothing to do with religious freedom at all. This is about a sexual orientation being denied the right to marry. Not all polyamorists belong to this or that religion. And state laws may no longer discriminate against people marrying based on sexual orientation. So all the bigamy laws were made defunct by Obergefell if they stop polyamorists from marrying. There are laws on the books in many states still, not removed, that say gay marriage is illegal too. But as you would argue, once Obergefell happened, they no longer are applicable. Same with bigamy laws that hurt polyamorist-Americans' civil rights.

We're talking about how the Brown family is using their right to privacy and their religious freedoms to make their case. You pretending that polygamy is a sexual orientation and pretending that is the case they'll make are lies you tell yourself to feel better. It's painfully clear you don't really care about religious freedoms unless they can be used to stifle gays and/or gay marriage. You're a flaming hypocrite. Again, why don't you support the religious freedoms of the Brown family? Time for you to run away again? Coward.

 

[Skylar]

Clearly the definition of marriage is what we say it is. Thank you for coming around to the fact that the USSC altered the definition.

No more so then when they overturned interracial marriage bans.

Marriage is a social construct that we define to service us. We don't serve it. And when laws are created that that run contrary to constitutional guarantees, the judiciary has an obligation to put the constitution above the law.

Which is what Obergefell was all about.

Agreed Skylar. That's why the Constitution demands that ALL and not just one or two sexual orientations may marry when in Obergefell it Found that it's against the law for states to deny people marriage licenses based on sexual orientation.

Polyamory isn't a sexual orientation. You made that up, citing yourself.

Which might explain why Brown isn't citing any of that pseudo-legal gibberish.

It's already legal for polyamorists to marry. Thanks for your agreement on that after your impassioned "nobody left out" legal reasoning and "marriage is what we say it is". When "we" means equality under the 14th Amendment, and not just a group of LGBTs blackmailing a judge or Justice based on what THEY say marriage can't be (polyamory etc.).

Marriage is certainly legal. Bigamy, not so much.

 

[Skylar]

We're not talking about bigamy.

The law is. Which is why your babble has nothing to do with it.

We're talking about polyamory, a sexual orientation.

Which it isn't. Remember, you imagined that.

 

[Silhouette]

We're talking about how the Brown family is using their right to privacy and their religious freedoms to make their case. You pretending that polygamy is a sexual orientation and pretending that is the case they'll make are lies you tell yourself to feel better. It's painfully clear you don't really care about religious freedoms unless they can be used to stifle gays and/or gay marriage. You're a flaming hypocrite. Again, why don't you support the religious freedoms of the Brown family? Time for you to run away again? Coward.

Actually, polyamory IS a sexual orientation because polyamorists say so. And that's all the definition a "transgender" needs for his diagnosis so don't play favorites. I can easily demonstrate in a court of law that some men are habitually sexually attracted to more than one woman, and have made a lifestyle out of that; which is identical to "same-sex" orientation. The habitual attraction, the lifestyle = a sexual orientation. Defined.

Obergefell said states cannot discriminate for a marriage license against someone based on their sexual orientation, so? Man/woman isn't sacred any more (the bedrock of marriage forever, for maybe even a million years for all we know), so "two" is like brushing the ash off ground zero after a nuclear warhead has detonated everything that mattered..

 

[Skylar]

We're talking about how the Brown family is using their right to privacy and their religious freedoms to make their case. You pretending that polygamy is a sexual orientation and pretending that is the case they'll make are lies you tell yourself to feel better. It's painfully clear you don't really care about religious freedoms unless they can be used to stifle gays and/or gay marriage. You're a flaming hypocrite. Again, why don't you support the religious freedoms of the Brown family? Time for you to run away again? Coward.

Actually, polyamory IS a sexual orientation because polyamorists say so.

Says you. Citing yourself. Not any polyamorist. Brown hasn't made that claim in any court filings.

Yawning....so anything beyond your normal 'my imagination trumps the USSC' schtick? Because we already know how all those contests end.

 

[Silhouette]

'my imagination trumps the USSC' schtick? Because we already know how all those contests end.

We'll see. You think you know how the deranged men using women's bathrooms/showers/etc. cases are going to end? You might be surprised...

 

[Silhouette]

We're talking about how the Brown family is using their right to privacy and their religious freedoms to make their case. You pretending that polygamy is a sexual orientation and pretending that is the case they'll make are lies you tell yourself to feel better. It's painfully clear you don't really care about religious freedoms unless they can be used to stifle gays and/or gay marriage. You're a flaming hypocrite. Again, why don't you support the religious freedoms of the Brown family? Time for you to run away again? Coward.

Actually, polyamory IS a sexual orientation because polyamorists say so. And that's all the definition a "transgender" needs for his diagnosis so don't play favorites. I can easily demonstrate in a court of law that some men are habitually sexually attracted to more than one woman, and have made a lifestyle out of that; which is identical to "same-sex" orientation. The habitual attraction, the lifestyle = a sexual orientation. Defined.

Obergefell said states cannot discriminate for a marriage license against someone based on their sexual orientation, so? Man/woman isn't sacred any more (the bedrock of marriage forever, for maybe even a million years for all we know), so "two" is like brushing the ash off ground zero after a nuclear warhead has detonated everything that mattered..

We're talking about polyamory, a sexual orientation.

Which it isn't. Remember, you imagined that.

It is if polyamorists say it is. Either that or men cannot under any circumstances use women's facilities. None. Because if a polyamorist cannot self-diagnose as a sexual orientation, a transgender cannot self-diagnose "as a woman". Once you've detonated everything to ash, you can't pick and choose your favorites under the 14th's "equality" theme..

 

[mdk]

We're talking about how the Brown family is using their right to privacy and their religious freedoms to make their case. You pretending that polygamy is a sexual orientation and pretending that is the case they'll make are lies you tell yourself to feel better. It's painfully clear you don't really care about religious freedoms unless they can be used to stifle gays and/or gay marriage. You're a flaming hypocrite. Again, why don't you support the religious freedoms of the Brown family? Time for you to run away again? Coward.

Actually, polyamory IS a sexual orientation because polyamorists say so. And that's all the definition a "transgender" needs for his diagnosis so don't play favorites. I can easily demonstrate in a court of law that some men are habitually sexually attracted to more than one woman, and have made a lifestyle out of that; which is identical to "same-sex" orientation. The habitual attraction, the lifestyle = a sexual orientation. Defined.

Obergefell said states cannot discriminate for a marriage license against someone based on their sexual orientation, so? Man/woman isn't sacred any more (the bedrock of marriage forever, for maybe even a million years for all we know), so "two" is like brushing the ash off ground zero after a nuclear warhead has detonated everything that mattered..

No, polygamy isn't a sexual orientation and your made-up finding in Obergefell doesn't have any bearing on the actual finding. You're only pretending it does in hopes you can end gay marriage. The Browns, on the other hand, are basing their case on their religious freedoms being violated as well as their right to privacy. You support religious freedoms, right? Why don't you support their claims?

 

[Skylar]

We're talking about how the Brown family is using their right to privacy and their religious freedoms to make their case. You pretending that polygamy is a sexual orientation and pretending that is the case they'll make are lies you tell yourself to feel better. It's painfully clear you don't really care about religious freedoms unless they can be used to stifle gays and/or gay marriage. You're a flaming hypocrite. Again, why don't you support the religious freedoms of the Brown family? Time for you to run away again? Coward.

Actually, polyamory IS a sexual orientation because polyamorists say so.

No, it isn't. And you're not quoting 'polyamorists'. You're quoting your imagination. Your imagination is legally irrelevant.

It always is.

It is if polyamorists say it is.

Says who? And of course, you haven't quoted a single polyamorist. You've only cited yourself. There's no part of your entire argument that you haven't just made up.

You make shit up. It has nothing to do with the law. Nothing happens.

 

[mdk]

Once you've detonated everything to ash, you can't pick and choose your favorites under the 14th's "equality" theme..

But you can pick and choose which religious freedoms people have under the First Amendment. Too funny.

 

[Silhouette]

No, polygamy isn't a sexual orientation and your made-up finding in Obergefell doesn't have any bearing on the actual finding. You're only pretending it does in hopes you can end gay marriage. The Browns, on the other hand, are basing their case on their religious freedoms being violated as well as their right to privacy. You support religious freedoms, right? Why don't you support their claims?

You really are fighting this tooth and nail for someone who pretended to be all for everyone having access to marriage. What skin is it off your teeth if polyamorists (making it part of their faith or not) enjoy marriage equality? Like I said, if man/woman isn't sacred then neither is "two". Either your for all Americans having access to marriage, even when the majority says "no", or you aren't. Which is it?

Tell me mdk/Skylar trolls, can a man self-diagnose as "a woman trapped inside a man's body"? Yes or no?

Next question, can a man sexually attracted to multiple women self-diagnose as having sexual orientation towards multiple partners? Yes or no?

 

[Skylar]

No, polygamy isn't a sexual orientation and your made-up finding in Obergefell doesn't have any bearing on the actual finding. You're only pretending it does in hopes you can end gay marriage. The Browns, on the other hand, are basing their case on their religious freedoms being violated as well as their right to privacy. You support religious freedoms, right? Why don't you support their claims?

You really are fighting this tooth and nail for someone who pretended to be all for everyone having access to marriage. What skin is it off your teeth if polyamorists (making it part of their faith or not) enjoy marriage equality? Like I said, if man/woman isn't sacred then neither is "two". Either your for all Americans having access to marriage, even when the majority says "no", or you aren't. Which is it?

Nah, we're just not accepting your imagination as legal evidence.

As it never is.

 

[Silhouette]

Nah, we're just not accepting your imagination as legal evidence.

As it never is.

So your response to "can men self-diagnose as a woman trapped in a man's body" is "neener neener neener!"?? Let me know when you feel up to answering the question. After all, you accept a layman's self-diagnosis as "transgender" as "legal evidence". It's OK for you to do that but not other people?

If a layman can self-diagnose as "woman trapped in a man's body", then polyamorists can self-diagnose as having a sexual orientation to multiple women.

 

[Skylar]

Nah, we're just not accepting your imagination as legal evidence.

As it never is.

So your response to "can men self-diagnose as a woman trapped in a man's body" is "neener neener neener!"??

Sil....your imagination isn't legal evidence. Brown hasn't touched any of the incoherent 'polyamory is a sexual orientation' gibberish that you've made up.

As it isn't.

Let me know when you finally manage to cite something other than your own imagination as the law.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No, polygamy isn't a sexual orientation and your made-up finding in Obergefell doesn't have any bearing on the actual finding. You're only pretending it does in hopes you can end gay marriage. The Browns, on the other hand, are basing their case on their religious freedoms being violated as well as their right to privacy. You support religious freedoms, right? Why don't you support their claims?

You really are fighting this tooth and nail for someone who pretended to be all for everyone having access to marriage. What skin is it off your teeth if polyamorists (making it part of their faith or not) enjoy marriage equality? Like I said, if man/woman isn't sacred then neither is "two". Either your for all Americans having access to marriage, even when the majority says "no", or you aren't. Which is it?

Tell me mdk/Skylar trolls, can a man self-diagnose as "a woman trapped inside a man's body"? Yes or no?

Next question, can a man sexually attracted to multiple women self-diagnose as having sexual orientation towards multiple partners? Yes or no?

No, polygamy isn't a sexual orientation and your made-up finding in Obergefell doesn't have any bearing on the actual finding. You're only pretending it does in hopes you can end gay marriage. The Browns, on the other hand, are basing their case on their religious freedoms being violated as well as their right to privacy. You support religious freedoms, right? Why don't you support their claims?

You really are fighting this tooth and nail for someone who pretended to be all for everyone having access to marriage. What skin is it off your teeth if polyamorists (making it part of their faith or not) enjoy marriage equality? Like I said, if man/woman isn't sacred then neither is "two". Either your for all Americans having access to marriage, even when the majority says "no", or you aren't. Which is it?

Tell me mdk/Skylar trolls, can a man self-diagnose as "a woman trapped inside a man's body"? Yes or no?

Next question, can a man sexually attracted to multiple women self-diagnose as having sexual orientation towards multiple partners? Yes or no?

Again, if three or more persons wish to marry they’re at liberty to petition their state government to amend marriage contract law to indeed accommodate three or more persons.

But this isn’t an issue for the courts; no ‘rights’ are being ‘violated’ – citizens can’t be ‘denied access’ to a law that doesn’t exist.

 

[Silhouette]

Rights are being violated if states are discriminating based on someone's sexual orientation. You folks think you have the monopoly on sexual orientation?