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

[Syriusly]

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 reslly seem applicable unless you actually think same sex couples can procreate.

Oh I am quite bright enough- I have watched you dance around the issue over and over again- without ever once being willing to actually take an actual position.

You are 'against polygamy' but cannot articulate a reason why you are 'against' polygamy if the women were all sterile.
You are 'against sibling marriage- but cannot articulate a reason why you would be against a sterile brother marrying his sister.

Here is your chance-

• articulate specifically why you oppose polygamous marriage- if its based upon procreation then let us know whether you are okay with polygamous marriage if the members are unable to reproduce together.
• articulate specifically why you oppose sibling marriage- if its based upon procreation then let us know whether you are okay with sibling marriage as long as one of the siblings is sterile.

 

[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.

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'?

Unless YOU can come up with a reason it is REMARKABLY different than other other legal contract (which none limit participation), it will be up to a court to find a compelling state interest in such a restriction. Seeing that no other contract exists that does, the argument can only be about procreation.

Do you really want that to be a limiting fact of the contract?

I do, I don't think you would so desire though

 

[Pop23]

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 reslly seem applicable unless you actually think same sex couples can procreate.

Oh I am quite bright enough- I have watched you dance around the issue over and over again- without ever once being willing to actually take an actual position.

You are 'against polygamy' but cannot articulate a reason why you are 'against' polygamy if the women were all sterile.
You are 'against sibling marriage- but cannot articulate a reason why you would be against a sterile brother marrying his sister.

Here is your chance-

• articulate specifically why you oppose polygamous marriage- if its based upon procreation then let us know whether you are okay with polygamous marriage if the members are unable to reproduce together.
• articulate specifically why you oppose sibling marriage- if its based upon procreation then let us know whether you are okay with sibling marriage as long as one of the siblings is sterile.

^^^^^^I'm betting on dementia along with a stroke.

 

[Pop23]

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 reslly seem applicable unless you actually think same sex couples can procreate.

Oh I am quite bright enough- I have watched you dance around the issue over and over again- without ever once being willing to actually take an actual position.

You are 'against polygamy' but cannot articulate a reason why you are 'against' polygamy if the women were all sterile.
You are 'against sibling marriage- but cannot articulate a reason why you would be against a sterile brother marrying his sister.

Here is your chance-

• articulate specifically why you oppose polygamous marriage- if its based upon procreation then let us know whether you are okay with polygamous marriage if the members are unable to reproduce together.
• articulate specifically why you oppose sibling marriage- if its based upon procreation then let us know whether you are okay with sibling marriage as long as one of the siblings is sterile.

^^^^^ so full of assumptions to be laughable. I hope your a comedian cuz you'd bting the freaking house down nightly!

 

[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'?

Unless YOU can come up with a reason it is REMARKABLY different than other other legal contract (which none limit participation), it will be up to a court to find a compelling state interest in such a restriction. Seeing that no other contract exists that does, the argument can only be about procreation.

Marriage isn't a generic legal contract. Its defined by society within the bounds of individual rights. Not by the individual.

You can pretend otherwise but......so? Its not like our law magically changes just because its inconvenient to your argument.

And I ask again, what 'ramifications'? Nothing you've predicted regarding same sex marriage has actually happened anywhere in the country where its been legalized.

Ever.

 

[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.

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'?

Uh... The Supreme Legislators voted and they 'found' that there is a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO MARRY.

Now that means that ANYONE can MARRY ANYTHING at ANYTIME, because the Supreme Legislature SAID SO!

Now folks, in 1995 ... I challenged the degenerates Advocating for the Normalization of Sexual Deviancy, to show argument which would preclude Polygamists from marrying. They could not do it then... and they cannot do it now... because the same reasons that they push justifying the pretense of marriage for the homosexuals, are the same reasons that must be used to argue that three more life forms can marry.

The same is true for the lowly pedophiles...

The Supreme Legislature has made Degeneracy a protected class... so the PEDOPHILE IS NOW A FULLY PROTECTED CLASS OF INDIVIDUAL.

ALL THEY ARE WAITING ON NOW... IS FOR CHILDREN TO BE LICENSED FOR SEXUAL CONSENT.

THAT'S IT!

Ask any of these pervs IF they agree or disagree with the RIGHT for ADULTS to pursue Children for Sexual Gratification.

Most will feign disagreement... but THEIR ONLY BASIS FOR DISAGREEING IS "IT'S ILLEGAL".

They have no moral contest... because as Relativist, they have no sense of morality. They're quite literally INCAPABLE OF IT.

 

[Syriusly]

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 reslly seem applicable unless you actually think same sex couples can procreate.

Oh I am quite bright enough- I have watched you dance around the issue over and over again- without ever once being willing to actually take an actual position.

You are 'against polygamy' but cannot articulate a reason why you are 'against' polygamy if the women were all sterile.
You are 'against sibling marriage- but cannot articulate a reason why you would be against a sterile brother marrying his sister.

Here is your chance-

• articulate specifically why you oppose polygamous marriage- if its based upon procreation then let us know whether you are okay with polygamous marriage if the members are unable to reproduce together.
• articulate specifically why you oppose sibling marriage- if its based upon procreation then let us know whether you are okay with sibling marriage as long as one of the siblings is sterile.

^^^^^ so full of assumptions to be laughable. I hope your a comedian cuz you'd bting the freaking house down nightly!

And you dance away again......you are a regular Ginger Rogers

You are 'against polygamy' but cannot articulate a reason why you are 'against' polygamy if the women were all sterile.
You are 'against sibling marriage- but cannot articulate a reason why you would be against a sterile brother marrying his sister.

Here is your chance-

• articulate specifically why you oppose polygamous marriage- if its based upon procreation then let us know whether you are okay with polygamous marriage if the members are unable to reproduce together.
• articulate specifically why you oppose sibling marriage- if its based upon procreation then let us know whether you are okay with sibling marriage as long as one of the siblings is sterile.

 

[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.

Oh!

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

RAMIFICATIONS.

Good god, are you serious?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Marriage isn't a generic legal contract. Its defined by society within the bounds of individual rights. Not by the individual.

You can pretend otherwise but......so? Its not like our law magically changes just because its inconvenient to your argument.

ROFLMNAO!​

 

[Syriusly]

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'?

Uh... The Supreme Legislators voted and they 'found' that there is a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO MARRY.

Now that means that ANYONE can MARRY ANYTHING at ANYTIME, because the Supreme Legislature SAID SO!

.

The Supreme Court said marriage is a right of all Americans over 60 years ago.

Owning a gun is also a right, but that doesn't mean you get to own a gun with your felony conviction.

 

[Pop23]

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 reslly seem applicable unless you actually think same sex couples can procreate.

Oh I am quite bright enough- I have watched you dance around the issue over and over again- without ever once being willing to actually take an actual position.

You are 'against polygamy' but cannot articulate a reason why you are 'against' polygamy if the women were all sterile.
You are 'against sibling marriage- but cannot articulate a reason why you would be against a sterile brother marrying his sister.

Here is your chance-

• articulate specifically why you oppose polygamous marriage- if its based upon procreation then let us know whether you are okay with polygamous marriage if the members are unable to reproduce together.
• articulate specifically why you oppose sibling marriage- if its based upon procreation then let us know whether you are okay with sibling marriage as long as one of the siblings is sterile.

^^^^^ so full of assumptions to be laughable. I hope your a comedian cuz you'd bting the freaking house down nightly!

And you dance away again......you are a regular Ginger Rogers

You are 'against polygamy' but cannot articulate a reason why you are 'against' polygamy if the women were all sterile.
You are 'against sibling marriage- but cannot articulate a reason why you would be against a sterile brother marrying his sister.

Here is your chance-

• articulate specifically why you oppose polygamous marriage- if its based upon procreation then let us know whether you are okay with polygamous marriage if the members are unable to reproduce together.
• articulate specifically why you oppose sibling marriage- if its based upon procreation then let us know whether you are okay with sibling marriage as long as one of the siblings is sterile.

I hear blood thinners are good for stroke victims. But visit your family doctor before taking them.

 

[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'?

Uh... The Supreme Legislators voted and they 'found' that there is a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO MARRY.

The right to marry was recognized long before the Obergefell ruling. See Loving V. Virginia....in the 60s.

Remember, Keyes.....you don't actually know what you're talking about.

Now that means that ANYONE can MARRY ANYTHING at ANYTIME, because the Supreme Legislature SAID SO!

If you believe that's what the court said, please quote them saying so. You'll find that you're only quoting yourself.

Which we've already established is objectively and legally meaningless.

 

[Syriusly]

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 reslly seem applicable unless you actually think same sex couples can procreate.

Oh I am quite bright enough- I have watched you dance around the issue over and over again- without ever once being willing to actually take an actual position.

You are 'against polygamy' but cannot articulate a reason why you are 'against' polygamy if the women were all sterile.
You are 'against sibling marriage- but cannot articulate a reason why you would be against a sterile brother marrying his sister.

Here is your chance-

• articulate specifically why you oppose polygamous marriage- if its based upon procreation then let us know whether you are okay with polygamous marriage if the members are unable to reproduce together.
• articulate specifically why you oppose sibling marriage- if its based upon procreation then let us know whether you are okay with sibling marriage as long as one of the siblings is sterile.

^^^^^ so full of assumptions to be laughable. I hope your a comedian cuz you'd bting the freaking house down nightly!

And you dance away again......you are a regular Ginger Rogers

You are 'against polygamy' but cannot articulate a reason why you are 'against' polygamy if the women were all sterile.
You are 'against sibling marriage- but cannot articulate a reason why you would be against a sterile brother marrying his sister.

Here is your chance-

• articulate specifically why you oppose polygamous marriage- if its based upon procreation then let us know whether you are okay with polygamous marriage if the members are unable to reproduce together.
• articulate specifically why you oppose sibling marriage- if its based upon procreation then let us know whether you are okay with sibling marriage as long as one of the siblings is sterile.

I hear blood thinners are good for stroke victims. But visit your family doctor before taking them.

And you dance away again......you are a regular Ginger Rogers

You are 'against polygamy' but cannot articulate a reason why you are 'against' polygamy if the women were all sterile.
You are 'against sibling marriage- but cannot articulate a reason why you would be against a sterile brother marrying his sister.

Here is your chance-

• articulate specifically why you oppose polygamous marriage- if its based upon procreation then let us know whether you are okay with polygamous marriage if the members are unable to reproduce together.
• articulate specifically why you oppose sibling marriage- if its based upon procreation then let us know whether you are okay with sibling marriage as long as one of the siblings is sterile.

 

[Skylar]

Marriage isn't a generic legal contract. Its defined by society within the bounds of individual rights. Not by the individual.

You can pretend otherwise but......so? Its not like our law magically changes just because its inconvenient to your argument.

ROFLMNAO!​

Notice you can't refute me......nor do you even disagree. As we both know I'm right.

Remember that.

 

[Pop23]

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 reslly seem applicable unless you actually think same sex couples can procreate.

Oh I am quite bright enough- I have watched you dance around the issue over and over again- without ever once being willing to actually take an actual position.

You are 'against polygamy' but cannot articulate a reason why you are 'against' polygamy if the women were all sterile.
You are 'against sibling marriage- but cannot articulate a reason why you would be against a sterile brother marrying his sister.

Here is your chance-

• articulate specifically why you oppose polygamous marriage- if its based upon procreation then let us know whether you are okay with polygamous marriage if the members are unable to reproduce together.
• articulate specifically why you oppose sibling marriage- if its based upon procreation then let us know whether you are okay with sibling marriage as long as one of the siblings is sterile.

^^^^^ so full of assumptions to be laughable. I hope your a comedian cuz you'd bting the freaking house down nightly!

And you dance away again......you are a regular Ginger Rogers

You are 'against polygamy' but cannot articulate a reason why you are 'against' polygamy if the women were all sterile.
You are 'against sibling marriage- but cannot articulate a reason why you would be against a sterile brother marrying his sister.

Here is your chance-

• articulate specifically why you oppose polygamous marriage- if its based upon procreation then let us know whether you are okay with polygamous marriage if the members are unable to reproduce together.
• articulate specifically why you oppose sibling marriage- if its based upon procreation then let us know whether you are okay with sibling marriage as long as one of the siblings is sterile.

I hear blood thinners are good for stroke victims. But visit your family doctor before taking them.

And you dance away again......you are a regular Ginger Rogers

You are 'against polygamy' but cannot articulate a reason why you are 'against' polygamy if the women were all sterile.
You are 'against sibling marriage- but cannot articulate a reason why you would be against a sterile brother marrying his sister.

Here is your chance-

• articulate specifically why you oppose polygamous marriage- if its based upon procreation then let us know whether you are okay with polygamous marriage if the members are unable to reproduce together.
• articulate specifically why you oppose sibling marriage- if its based upon procreation then let us know whether you are okay with sibling marriage as long as one of the siblings is sterile.

Consult a doctor dude, I can play your childish game all day

 

[Syriusly]

Oh I am quite bright enough- I have watched you dance around the issue over and over again- without ever once being willing to actually take an actual position.

You are 'against polygamy' but cannot articulate a reason why you are 'against' polygamy if the women were all sterile.
You are 'against sibling marriage- but cannot articulate a reason why you would be against a sterile brother marrying his sister.

Here is your chance-

• articulate specifically why you oppose polygamous marriage- if its based upon procreation then let us know whether you are okay with polygamous marriage if the members are unable to reproduce together.
• articulate specifically why you oppose sibling marriage- if its based upon procreation then let us know whether you are okay with sibling marriage as long as one of the siblings is sterile.

^^^^^ so full of assumptions to be laughable. I hope your a comedian cuz you'd bting the freaking house down nightly!

And you dance away again......you are a regular Ginger Rogers

You are 'against polygamy' but cannot articulate a reason why you are 'against' polygamy if the women were all sterile.
You are 'against sibling marriage- but cannot articulate a reason why you would be against a sterile brother marrying his sister.

Here is your chance-

• articulate specifically why you oppose polygamous marriage- if its based upon procreation then let us know whether you are okay with polygamous marriage if the members are unable to reproduce together.
• articulate specifically why you oppose sibling marriage- if its based upon procreation then let us know whether you are okay with sibling marriage as long as one of the siblings is sterile.

I hear blood thinners are good for stroke victims. But visit your family doctor before taking them.

And you dance away again......you are a regular Ginger Rogers

You are 'against polygamy' but cannot articulate a reason why you are 'against' polygamy if the women were all sterile.
You are 'against sibling marriage- but cannot articulate a reason why you would be against a sterile brother marrying his sister.

Here is your chance-

• articulate specifically why you oppose polygamous marriage- if its based upon procreation then let us know whether you are okay with polygamous marriage if the members are unable to reproduce together.
• articulate specifically why you oppose sibling marriage- if its based upon procreation then let us know whether you are okay with sibling marriage as long as one of the siblings is sterile.

Consult a doctor dude, I can play your childish game all day

Of course you can- you are Pop- who will not take a stand on anything- just take cheap Pop shots.

You are 'against polygamy' but cannot articulate a reason why you are 'against' polygamy if the women were all sterile.
You are 'against sibling marriage- but cannot articulate a reason why you would be against a sterile brother marrying his sister.

Here is your chance-

• articulate specifically why you oppose polygamous marriage- if its based upon procreation then let us know whether you are okay with polygamous marriage if the members are unable to reproduce together.
• articulate specifically why you oppose sibling marriage- if its based upon procreation then let us know whether you are okay with sibling marriage as long as one of the siblings is sterile.

 

[Pop23]

^^^^^ so full of assumptions to be laughable. I hope your a comedian cuz you'd bting the freaking house down nightly!

And you dance away again......you are a regular Ginger Rogers

You are 'against polygamy' but cannot articulate a reason why you are 'against' polygamy if the women were all sterile.
You are 'against sibling marriage- but cannot articulate a reason why you would be against a sterile brother marrying his sister.

Here is your chance-

• articulate specifically why you oppose polygamous marriage- if its based upon procreation then let us know whether you are okay with polygamous marriage if the members are unable to reproduce together.
• articulate specifically why you oppose sibling marriage- if its based upon procreation then let us know whether you are okay with sibling marriage as long as one of the siblings is sterile.

I hear blood thinners are good for stroke victims. But visit your family doctor before taking them.

And you dance away again......you are a regular Ginger Rogers

You are 'against polygamy' but cannot articulate a reason why you are 'against' polygamy if the women were all sterile.
You are 'against sibling marriage- but cannot articulate a reason why you would be against a sterile brother marrying his sister.

Here is your chance-

• articulate specifically why you oppose polygamous marriage- if its based upon procreation then let us know whether you are okay with polygamous marriage if the members are unable to reproduce together.
• articulate specifically why you oppose sibling marriage- if its based upon procreation then let us know whether you are okay with sibling marriage as long as one of the siblings is sterile.

Consult a doctor dude, I can play your childish game all day

Of course you can- you are Pop- who will not take a stand on anything- just take cheap Pop shots.

You are 'against polygamy' but cannot articulate a reason why you are 'against' polygamy if the women were all sterile.
You are 'against sibling marriage- but cannot articulate a reason why you would be against a sterile brother marrying his sister.

Here is your chance-

• articulate specifically why you oppose polygamous marriage- if its based upon procreation then let us know whether you are okay with polygamous marriage if the members are unable to reproduce together.
• articulate specifically why you oppose sibling marriage- if its based upon procreation then let us know whether you are okay with sibling marriage as long as one of the siblings is sterile.

I can, and have, if your too lazy to find them, again, it's likely you need meds.


Consult a doctor dude, I can play your childish game all day


Why do you spam the board with your nonsense?

 

[Silhouette]

Why do you spam the board with your nonsense?

Syriusly spams with her friends because she doesn't want to answer how the Court can dicipher how one sexual orientation gets special rights and freedom from majority/state regulation, while another doesn't (polyamory). Pretty obvious. If they don't have an answer to an uncomfortable question, diversions will help from having to answer it. But unfortunately for SCOTUS' notorious 5, they're not going to enjoy that same luxury.

 

[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.

RAMIFICATIONS.

Good god, are you serious?

Yes, I am quite serious. Your would-be "opponent' there; Skylar, is a Relativist... thus it is wholly incapable of objectivity.

You've been engaged with it for the best part of the day, have you seen any sign of objectivity in anything that it's offered?

If it helps, you can remain engaged with it for the next 5 years and you'll never find so much as a trace of it. Because, again, it is incapable of it.

But in fairness to it, Left-think rests entirely in Relativism. Thus the reason that they have just licensed Degeneracy; literally laying the finishing touches on the establishment of such, as a protected class.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Why do you spam the board with your nonsense?

Syriusly spams with her friends because she doesn't want to answer how the Court can dicipher how one sexual orientation gets special rights and freedom from majority/state regulation, while another doesn't (polyamory). Pretty obvious. If they don't have an answer to an uncomfortable question, diversions will help from having to answer it. But unfortunately for SCOTUS' notorious 5, they're not going to enjoy that same luxury.

Yes, the Newly established Supreme Legislature does have some 'splainin' to do.
Sadly however, as Leftists, they'll have no more luck in explaining their vote, than does the least among their cult, who you've accurately highlighted in your response, as Syriusly, et al.