Gay-Sex Marriage "Settled"..Who Decides Polygamy (Polyamory) Next?

[Skylar]

What is it with your obsessive anal fantasies Pop?

Intetsting Sy, last night I ran over a beer can with my car and the can opened. Using your logic, my car magically went from being a mode of transportation to a handy little kitchen appliance that opens cans.

Does that mean that st State mandate that I license my car cease to exist because it was used for a different reason?

I have to admit- your response this time is typical of all of your non-responses.

Why, you claim since a dick feels absolutely great in your ass it should be treated the same as one in a vagina.

Do you not understand your own argument?

Odd to say the very least

I believe the actual argument is 'who cares'? Your obsession with someone else's orgasm doesn't have anything to do with treating them differently under the law.

If what they're doing is legal, why would it matter?

Doesn't matter. What makes you think I care?

Odd

If it doesn't matter, we wouldn't treat them differently under the law.

And with the Supreme Court ruling we don't.

Problem solved.

 

[Pop23]

Syriusly, how would the Court make a clear legal distinction between one sexual orientation called "homosexuality" and another called "polyamory"? You love to cite equal protection clauses, while seeking at the same time to distance another orientation to equal protection. That's what Pop called "funny"....and bigoted. Because it is.

Feel free to show me any of my statements which are bigoted.

You don't have to show me the funny ones- I am proud of all the times I have mocked you.

She did, you lose

Either you believe sexual orientations (plural) have special civil rights to marry now or you don't. When it comes to polygamy, Syriusly, which is it?

Still waiting for you to show me the quotes of me being 'bigoted'.

Still waiting.

Still waiting for you to say how the Court would find one sexual orientation deserves "special rights" while another (polyamory) doesn't. Still waiting.

If you want polygamists to marry, make your case.

She did and you failed to grasp it. Sil however didn't say she liked the idea, that's your assumption.

 

[Pop23]

Intetsting Sy, last night I ran over a beer can with my car and the can opened. Using your logic, my car magically went from being a mode of transportation to a handy little kitchen appliance that opens cans.

Does that mean that st State mandate that I license my car cease to exist because it was used for a different reason?

I have to admit- your response this time is typical of all of your non-responses.

Why, you claim since a dick feels absolutely great in your ass it should be treated the same as one in a vagina.

Do you not understand your own argument?

Odd to say the very least

I believe the actual argument is 'who cares'? Your obsession with someone else's orgasm doesn't have anything to do with treating them differently under the law.

If what they're doing is legal, why would it matter?

Doesn't matter. What makes you think I care?

Odd

If it doesn't matter, we wouldn't treat them differently under the law.

And with the Supreme Court ruling we don't.

Problem solved.

And then we must allow polygamists and incestuous couples equal under the law as well?

Interesting.

Mind if I object?

 

[Skylar]

Syriusly, how would the Court make a clear legal distinction between one sexual orientation called "homosexuality" and another called "polyamory"? You love to cite equal protection clauses, while seeking at the same time to distance another orientation to equal protection. That's what Pop called "funny"....and bigoted. Because it is.

Feel free to show me any of my statements which are bigoted.

You don't have to show me the funny ones- I am proud of all the times I have mocked you.

She did, you lose

Either you believe sexual orientations (plural) have special civil rights to marry now or you don't. When it comes to polygamy, Syriusly, which is it?

Still waiting for you to show me the quotes of me being 'bigoted'.

Still waiting.

Still waiting for you to say how the Court would find one sexual orientation deserves "special rights" while another (polyamory) doesn't. Still waiting.

If you want polygamists to marry, make your case.

She did and you failed to grasp it. Sil however didn't say she liked the idea, that's your assumption.

Then explain it to me. Why do you want polygamists to marry?

Specifically.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Intetsting Sy, last night I ran over a beer can with my car and the can opened. Using your logic, my car magically went from being a mode of transportation to a handy little kitchen appliance that opens cans.

Does that mean that st State mandate that I license my car cease to exist because it was used for a different reason?

I have to admit- your response this time is typical of all of your non-responses.

Why, you claim since a dick feels absolutely great in your ass it should be treated the same as one in a vagina.

Do you not understand your own argument?

Odd to say the very least

I believe the actual argument is 'who cares'? Your obsession with someone else's orgasm doesn't have anything to do with treating them differently under the law.

If what they're doing is legal, why would it matter?

Doesn't matter. What makes you think I care?

Odd

If it doesn't matter, we wouldn't treat them differently under the law.

And with the Supreme Court ruling we don't.

Problem solved.

Reader, Skylar is referring to the new Supreme Legislature... which looks a lot like the old SCOTUS... but it no longer needs to serve justice, all that matters is the vote for the Left, by a majority of Leftists.

Also... it should be noted that such perversion NEVER solves any problem... they can only create problems, as the recent examples of the spate of votes by the Supreme Legislature has just demonstrated.

These sort of catastrophes happen in states of severe degeneracy, wherein objective, sound fundamentals are eschewed and ludicrous, deluded notions rooted in the pitifully subjective needs of the more depraved individuals.

And it is due to that mess, that the US Federal Government has recently licensed Degeneracy, establishing those adherent to such as a protected class. Effectively unleashing hell... .

At this point there is no means to stop anyone from 'marrying' anything... .

We are literally living in the end times of the United States. As the United States, as it was founded, is NO MORE.

 

[Pop23]

Syriusly, how would the Court make a clear legal distinction between one sexual orientation called "homosexuality" and another called "polyamory"? You love to cite equal protection clauses, while seeking at the same time to distance another orientation to equal protection. That's what Pop called "funny"....and bigoted. Because it is.

Feel free to show me any of my statements which are bigoted.

You don't have to show me the funny ones- I am proud of all the times I have mocked you.

She did, you lose

Either you believe sexual orientations (plural) have special civil rights to marry now or you don't. When it comes to polygamy, Syriusly, which is it?

Still waiting for you to show me the quotes of me being 'bigoted'.

Still waiting.

Still waiting for you to say how the Court would find one sexual orientation deserves "special rights" while another (polyamory) doesn't. Still waiting.

If you want polygamists to marry, make your case.

She did and you failed to grasp it. Sil however didn't say she liked the idea, that's your assumption.

Then explain it to me. Why do you want polygamists to marry?

Specifically.

I don't, but can't find a legal argument against it. The number of participants in the contract appears arbitrary at best.

Can you name another contract that is illegal by having more than two participants in it? If you can't than you must explain the COMPELLING STATE INTEREST in denying additional participants in these.

But you really don't want to discuss this, you want legal reality to just magically disappear.

 

[Syriusly]

I have to admit- your response this time is typical of all of your non-responses.

Why, you claim since a dick feels absolutely great in your ass it should be treated the same as one in a vagina.

Do you not understand your own argument?

Odd to say the very least

I believe the actual argument is 'who cares'? Your obsession with someone else's orgasm doesn't have anything to do with treating them differently under the law.

If what they're doing is legal, why would it matter?

Doesn't matter. What makes you think I care?

Odd

If it doesn't matter, we wouldn't treat them differently under the law.

And with the Supreme Court ruling we don't.

Problem solved.

Reader, Skylar is referring to the new Supreme Legislature... which looks a lot like the old SCOTUS... but it no longer needs to serve justice, all that matters is the vote for the Left, by a majority of Leftists.

Also... it should be noted that such perversion NEVER solves any problem... they can only create problems, as the recent examples of the spate of votes by the Supreme Legislature has just demonstrated.

These sort of catastrophes happen in states of severe degeneracy, wherein objective, sound fundamentals are eschewed and ludicrous, deluded notions rooted in the pitifully subjective needs of the more depraved individuals.

Reader it is obvious that Keys is off of his meds again.

 

[Skylar]

I have to admit- your response this time is typical of all of your non-responses.

Why, you claim since a dick feels absolutely great in your ass it should be treated the same as one in a vagina.

Do you not understand your own argument?

Odd to say the very least

I believe the actual argument is 'who cares'? Your obsession with someone else's orgasm doesn't have anything to do with treating them differently under the law.

If what they're doing is legal, why would it matter?

Doesn't matter. What makes you think I care?

Odd

If it doesn't matter, we wouldn't treat them differently under the law.

And with the Supreme Court ruling we don't.

Problem solved.

Reader, Skylar is referring to the new Supreme Legislature... which looks a lot like the old SCOTUS... but it no longer needs to serve justice, all that matters is the vote for the Left, by a majority of Leftists.

Keyes....your 'reader' is just you talking to yourself. Do you really want to start the day as your own audience again?

And what I'm referring to is the Obergefell ruling. Which answered these two questions posed to the court:

1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a
marriage between two people of the same sex?

2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage
between two people of the same sex when their marriage was
lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/011615zr_f2q3.pdf

The court answered:

1) Yes.

2) Yes.

Though Kennedy put it with much more elegance and eloquence than I just did.

 

[Syriusly]

Syriusly, how would the Court make a clear legal distinction between one sexual orientation called "homosexuality" and another called "polyamory"? You love to cite equal protection clauses, while seeking at the same time to distance another orientation to equal protection. That's what Pop called "funny"....and bigoted. Because it is.

Feel free to show me any of my statements which are bigoted.

You don't have to show me the funny ones- I am proud of all the times I have mocked you.

She did, you lose

Either you believe sexual orientations (plural) have special civil rights to marry now or you don't. When it comes to polygamy, Syriusly, which is it?

Still waiting for you to show me the quotes of me being 'bigoted'.

Still waiting.

Still waiting for you to say how the Court would find one sexual orientation deserves "special rights" while another (polyamory) doesn't. Still waiting.

If you want polygamists to marry, make your case.

She did and you failed to grasp it. Sil however didn't say she liked the idea, that's your assumption.

Then explain it to me. Why do you want polygamists to marry?

Specifically.

I don't, but can't find a legal argument against it. The number of participants in the contract appears arbitrary at best.

Can you name another contract that is illegal by having more than two participants in it? If you can't than you must explain the COMPELLING STATE INTEREST in denying additional participants in these.

But you really don't want to discuss this, you want legal reality to just magically disappear.

If you can't find a compelling argument against polygamous marriage- well then why are you opposed to it- or are you?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Why, you claim since a dick feels absolutely great in your ass it should be treated the same as one in a vagina.

Do you not understand your own argument?

Odd to say the very least

I believe the actual argument is 'who cares'? Your obsession with someone else's orgasm doesn't have anything to do with treating them differently under the law.

If what they're doing is legal, why would it matter?

Doesn't matter. What makes you think I care?

Odd

If it doesn't matter, we wouldn't treat them differently under the law.

And with the Supreme Court ruling we don't.

Problem solved.

Reader, Skylar is referring to the new Supreme Legislature... which looks a lot like the old SCOTUS... but it no longer needs to serve justice, all that matters is the vote for the Left, by a majority of Leftists.

Also... it should be noted that such perversion NEVER solves any problem... they can only create problems, as the recent examples of the spate of votes by the Supreme Legislature has just demonstrated.

These sort of catastrophes happen in states of severe degeneracy, wherein objective, sound fundamentals are eschewed and ludicrous, deluded notions rooted in the pitifully subjective needs of the more depraved individuals.

Reader it is obvious that Keys is off of his meds again.

Ahh... isn't it wonderful how ready the delusional are to profess their nature? This is actually a positive sign. As it will serve us well in the next phase of this mess. So take notes... you'll need to know who they are, when the times comes that nature begins to clean this mess up.

Another clue has recently come to pass:

If you can't find a compelling argument against polygamous marriage- well then why are you opposed to it- or are you?

 

[Skylar]

The number of participants in the contract appears arbitrary at best.

How so?

Can you name another contract that is illegal by having more than two participants in it? If you can't than you must explain the COMPELLING STATE INTEREST in denying additional participants in th

I need do nothing. If you want polygamy, you'll have to make your case for it.

The fact that you can't doesn't obligate me to do anything.

 

[Pop23]

Still waiting for you to say how the Court would find one sexual orientation deserves "special rights" while another (polyamory) doesn't. Still waiting.

If you want polygamists to marry, make your case.

She did and you failed to grasp it. Sil however didn't say she liked the idea, that's your assumption.

Then explain it to me. Why do you want polygamists to marry?

Specifically.

I don't, but can't find a legal argument against it. The number of participants in the contract appears arbitrary at best.

Can you name another contract that is illegal by having more than two participants in it? If you can't than you must explain the COMPELLING STATE INTEREST in denying additional participants in these.

But you really don't want to discuss this, you want legal reality to just magically disappear.

If you can't find a compelling argument against polygamous marriage- well then why are you opposed to it- or are you?

Oh, I have great concerns for heterosexual polygamy. That can be nasty, yet those would not seem applicable to same sex plural marriage.

Since all must be treated equally, how do you legally justify excluding straight plural marriage, which can be harmful, ang gay plural marriage, which has not demonstrated the same harm?

You do understand how equal protection and due process works, right?

Or did you sleep through civics class?

 

[Pop23]

The number of participants in the contract appears arbitrary at best.

How so?

Can you name another contract that is illegal by having more than two participants in it? If you can't than you must explain the COMPELLING STATE INTEREST in denying additional participants in th

I need do nothing. If you want polygamy, you'll have to make your case for it.

The fact that you can't doesn't obligate me to do anything.

Sky, the case was made. You won, now deal with the ramifications.

 

[Syriusly]

If you want polygamists to marry, make your case.

She did and you failed to grasp it. Sil however didn't say she liked the idea, that's your assumption.

Then explain it to me. Why do you want polygamists to marry?

Specifically.

I don't, but can't find a legal argument against it. The number of participants in the contract appears arbitrary at best.

Can you name another contract that is illegal by having more than two participants in it? If you can't than you must explain the COMPELLING STATE INTEREST in denying additional participants in these.

But you really don't want to discuss this, you want legal reality to just magically disappear.

If you can't find a compelling argument against polygamous marriage- well then why are you opposed to it- or are you?

Oh, I have great concerns for heterosexual polygamy. That can be nasty, yet those would not seem applicable to same sex plural marriage.

Since all must be treated equally, how do you legally justify excluding straight plural marriage, which can be harmful, ang gay plural marriage, which has not demonstrated the same harm?

You do understand how equal protection and due process works, right?

Or did you sleep through civics class?

If you can't find a compelling argument against polygamous marriage- well then why are you opposed to it- or are you?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Why, you claim since a dick feels absolutely great in your ass it should be treated the same as one in a vagina.

Do you not understand your own argument?

Odd to say the very least

I believe the actual argument is 'who cares'? Your obsession with someone else's orgasm doesn't have anything to do with treating them differently under the law.

If what they're doing is legal, why would it matter?

Doesn't matter. What makes you think I care?

Odd

If it doesn't matter, we wouldn't treat them differently under the law.

And with the Supreme Court ruling we don't.

Problem solved.

Reader, Skylar is referring to the new Supreme Legislature... which looks a lot like the old SCOTUS... but it no longer needs to serve justice, all that matters is the vote for the Left, by a majority of Leftists.

Keyes....your 'reader' is just you talking to yourself. Do you really want to start the day as your own audience again?

And what I'm referring to is the Obergefell ruling. Which answered these two questions posed to the court:

1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a
marriage between two people of the same sex?

2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage
between two people of the same sex when their marriage was
lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/011615zr_f2q3.pdf

The court answered:

1) Yes.

2) Yes.

Though Kennedy put it with much more elegance and eloquence than I just did.

Reader, when Skylar says the "Court Answered" she is trying to avoid telling you that the Court "Voted" and the 5 Degenerates on the Court outnumbered those who recognized that the US Constitution in NO WAY speaks to any Fundamental Right to Marry, anywhere, on any level... .

And the "MAJORITY RULES!" at the Supreme Legislature.

Of course, that majority of 5 people, degenerates all... supersedes the VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES, who elected the THE VAST MAJORITY of the LEGISLATORS, who long debated the standards of marriage, who recognized the natural standards, wherein Nature provided humanity with two distinct but complementing genders, each respectively designed to join with the other... the VAST MAJORITY OF WHICH VOTED TO PASS BILLS THAT RECOGNIZED THAT IMMUTABLE NATURAL STANDARD and those respective bills in the VAST MAJORITY OF THE STATES, were SIGNED BY AND MADE LAW BY THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE GOVERNORS, ELECTED BY THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE VOTING IN THE UNITED STATES.

And that is really all there is to this...

 

[Pop23]

She did and you failed to grasp it. Sil however didn't say she liked the idea, that's your assumption.

Then explain it to me. Why do you want polygamists to marry?

Specifically.

I don't, but can't find a legal argument against it. The number of participants in the contract appears arbitrary at best.

Can you name another contract that is illegal by having more than two participants in it? If you can't than you must explain the COMPELLING STATE INTEREST in denying additional participants in these.

But you really don't want to discuss this, you want legal reality to just magically disappear.

If you can't find a compelling argument against polygamous marriage- well then why are you opposed to it- or are you?

Oh, I have great concerns for heterosexual polygamy. That can be nasty, yet those would not seem applicable to same sex plural marriage.

Since all must be treated equally, how do you legally justify excluding straight plural marriage, which can be harmful, ang gay plural marriage, which has not demonstrated the same harm?

You do understand how equal protection and due process works, right?

Or did you sleep through civics class?

If you can't find a compelling argument against polygamous marriage- well then why are you opposed to it- or are you?

I've listed the arguments against plural straight marriage a few times, as have others on both sides of the issue. If you are too stupid, have dementia, or are simply too lazy to note them when posted, that's your problem.

Those problems are related soley to straight plural and don't really seem applicable to gay coupling unless you actually think same sex couples can procreate.

 

[Skylar]

The number of participants in the contract appears arbitrary at best.

How so?

Can you name another contract that is illegal by having more than two participants in it? If you can't than you must explain the COMPELLING STATE INTEREST in denying additional participants in th

I need do nothing. If you want polygamy, you'll have to make your case for it.

The fact that you can't doesn't obligate me to do anything.

Sky, the case was made. You won, now deal with the ramifications.

Same sex marriage has been legal somewhere in the country for more than 10 years. Polygamy isn't recognized as marriage anywhere.

What 'ramifications'? And how is the number of participants 'arbitrary'?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The number of participants in the contract appears arbitrary at best.

How so?

Can you name another contract that is illegal by having more than two participants in it? If you can't than you must explain the COMPELLING STATE INTEREST in denying additional participants in th

I need do nothing. If you want polygamy, you'll have to make your case for it.

The fact that you can't doesn't obligate me to do anything.

Sky, the case was made. You won, now deal with the ramifications.

Oh!

You're speaking of consequences... that is a concept which can only be recognized through objective reason.

 

[Skylar]

I believe the actual argument is 'who cares'? Your obsession with someone else's orgasm doesn't have anything to do with treating them differently under the law.

If what they're doing is legal, why would it matter?

Doesn't matter. What makes you think I care?

Odd

If it doesn't matter, we wouldn't treat them differently under the law.

And with the Supreme Court ruling we don't.

Problem solved.

Reader, Skylar is referring to the new Supreme Legislature... which looks a lot like the old SCOTUS... but it no longer needs to serve justice, all that matters is the vote for the Left, by a majority of Leftists.

Keyes....your 'reader' is just you talking to yourself. Do you really want to start the day as your own audience again?

And what I'm referring to is the Obergefell ruling. Which answered these two questions posed to the court:

1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a
marriage between two people of the same sex?

2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage
between two people of the same sex when their marriage was
lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/011615zr_f2q3.pdf

The court answered:

1) Yes.

2) Yes.

Though Kennedy put it with much more elegance and eloquence than I just did.

Reader, when Skylar says the "Court Answered" she is trying to avoid telling you that the Court "Voted" and the 5 Degenerates on the Court outnumbered those who recognized that the US Constitution in NO WAY speaks to any Fundamental Right to Marry, anywhere, on any level... .

Again, Keyes... your 'reader' is just you talking to you while citing you. You're literally your own source and your own audience. Do we even need to be here?

As for the constitution and its 'speaking to the right to marry', please read the 9th amendment. A right need not be enumerated to exist.

Remember, you really don't know what you're talking about. Even when you're speaking to such a forgiving audience as yourself.

 

[Skylar]

The number of participants in the contract appears arbitrary at best.

How so?

Can you name another contract that is illegal by having more than two participants in it? If you can't than you must explain the COMPELLING STATE INTEREST in denying additional participants in th

I need do nothing. If you want polygamy, you'll have to make your case for it.

The fact that you can't doesn't obligate me to do anything.

Sky, the case was made. You won, now deal with the ramifications.

Oh!

You're speaking of consequences... that is a concept which can only be recognized through objective reason.

We've been through this, Keyes. You don't use objective reason. You use subjective opinion. Which you're more than welcome to. But it doesn't establish anything objective.

As for the consequences.....what consequences? As I said, same sex marriage has been legal somewhere in this country for more than a decade. Polygamy never has been.

So by 'consequences', you're apparently referring to anything you can possibly imagine or make up. As none of what you're talking about has actually happened.