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

[Where_r_my_Keys]

^^^^^ 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.

Allow me to help.

Ya see scamp, Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

 

[Skylar]

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).

The only one saying that the Courts must treat homosexuality the same way as polyandry....is you. Citing yourself. And as the Obergefell ruling demonstrates, you have no idea what you're talking about. You made all sorts of assertions of what the court 'must do' and how they 'must' affirm your pseudo-legal assertions regarding that ruling.

So....how'd that work out for you?

 

[Skylar]

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.

Allow me to help.

Ya see scamp, Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Or one man and one man. Or one woman and one woman.

In every State. And there's not a thing you can do about it.

See how that works?

 

[Syriusly]

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?

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.

 

[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.

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.

And by 'objectivity', you mean whatever you imagine? Remember Keyes.....you citing your personal opinion and subjective feelings doesn't establish anything objectively.

I'm not entirely sure you even know what 'objective' means.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Which sexual orientation gets special rights Silhouette?

The Supreme Court found that Americans have the right to marriage- including Americans who want to marry the same gender.

If you want to get poly married- you can go to the court and argue that is your right- and that is your right to attempt to convince the court.

But since this is just part of your homophobic rage fest- not going to happen is it?

 

[rcfieldz]

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

Don't forget consensual incest!

 

[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).

The only one saying that the Courts must treat homosexuality the same way as polyandry....is you. Citing yourself. And as the Obergefell ruling demonstrates, you have no idea what you're talking about. You made all sorts of assertions of what the court 'must do' and how they 'must' affirm your pseudo-legal assertions regarding that ruling.

So....how'd that work out for you?

OH! So you're saying that there is NOT a Fundamental Right to Marry?

Interesting...

Does anyone who has followed Skylar's rants, recall it having professed this certainty that there is NOT a Fundamental RIGHT TO MARRY? (This before the newly established Supreme Legislature recently divining that THERE IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO MARRY.)

 

[Syriusly]

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).

The only one saying that the Courts must treat homosexuality the same way as polyandry....is you. Citing yourself. And as the Obergefell ruling demonstrates, you have no idea what you're talking about. You made all sorts of assertions of what the court 'must do' and how they 'must' affirm your pseudo-legal assertions regarding that ruling.

So....how'd that work out for you?

OH! So you're saying that there is NOT a Fundamental Right to Marry?
.)

We have a right to marry- as we have a right to own guns.

Yet states have laws forbidding convicted felons of owning guns.

Are you saying we have no right to own guns?

 

[Pop23]

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).

The only one saying that the Courts must treat homosexuality the same way as polyandry....is you. Citing yourself. And as the Obergefell ruling demonstrates, you have no idea what you're talking about. You made all sorts of assertions of what the court 'must do' and how they 'must' affirm your pseudo-legal assertions regarding that ruling.

So....how'd that work out for you?

OH! So you're saying that there is NOT a Fundamental Right to Marry?
.)

We have a right to marry- as we have a right to own guns.

Yet states have laws forbidding convicted felons of owning guns.

Are you saying we have no right to own guns?

States forbid same sex marriage also.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

Allow me to help.

Ya see scamp, Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Or one man and one man. Or one woman and one woman.

In every State. And there's not a thing you can do about it.

See how that works?

LOL!

No Skylar, Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

We know this because Nature designed the human species with two distinct, but complementing genders. Each respectively DESIGNED to JOIN WITH THE OTHER... forming from two distinct bodies, one sustainable body; which I'm sure that even a person of your starkly limited intellectual means DEFINES MARRIAGE.

(Now Reader, understand that Homosexuality is a consequence of the rape of infants and toddlers which was presented in the form of a game, with much laughter and cooing, and the stimulation of the infant/toddler genitals.

The stimulating of the child's genitals stimulates a premature release of hormones which imprint upon the child's nature the associating of Sexual Stimulation with PLAY, FUN and ACCEPTANCE WITH THE GENDER THAT IS RAPING IT DURING THAT SEX PLAY.

As a consequence the homosexual is prone toward associating Sex with PLAY... FUN and Acceptance.

Now, Skylar is a professed homosexual. So pay close attention to Skylar's looming response... and see if you can see any sign of the perversion stemming from the above noted abuse, wherein it needs to separate sex from Marriage and to limit sex to purely that which relates to PLAY, FUN, ENTERTAINMENT and ITS OWN SUBJECTIVE NEEDS THROUGH THE PLEASURE INTRINSIC TO SEX).

 

[Syriusly]

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).

The only one saying that the Courts must treat homosexuality the same way as polyandry....is you. Citing yourself. And as the Obergefell ruling demonstrates, you have no idea what you're talking about. You made all sorts of assertions of what the court 'must do' and how they 'must' affirm your pseudo-legal assertions regarding that ruling.

So....how'd that work out for you?

OH! So you're saying that there is NOT a Fundamental Right to Marry?
.)

We have a right to marry- as we have a right to own guns.

Yet states have laws forbidding convicted felons of owning guns.

Are you saying we have no right to own guns?

States forbid same sex marriage also.

Are you saying we have no right to marriage?

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Allow me to help.

Ya see scamp, Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Or one man and one man. Or one woman and one woman.

In every State. And there's not a thing you can do about it.

See how that works?

LOL!

No Skylar, Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

We know this .

Because that is what the voices in your head tell you.

 

[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).

The only one saying that the Courts must treat homosexuality the same way as polyandry....is you. Citing yourself. And as the Obergefell ruling demonstrates, you have no idea what you're talking about. You made all sorts of assertions of what the court 'must do' and how they 'must' affirm your pseudo-legal assertions regarding that ruling.

So....how'd that work out for you?

OH! So you're saying that there is NOT a Fundamental Right to Marry?
.)

We have a right to marry- as we have a right to own guns.

Yet states have laws forbidding convicted felons of owning guns.

Are you saying we have no right to own guns?

What you're not quite bright enough to understand is that your right to marry is limited to your means to bear the responsibilities INTRINSIC TO THAT RIGHT.

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman. Thus your right to marry is sustained ONLY by your responsibility to apply for such, with a person whose gender is distinct from your own.

The Right to own and effectively use a firearm in defense of your life and the lives of those around you, and the means to exercise your God-given Rights, is sustained by your responsibility to demonstrate your worthiness of trust, to not use that firearm to the detriment of the means of others to exercise their own rights.

This is what every child who went to school in the before the 1990s was taught and knows it instinctively... your ignorance of those self-evident facts, does not alter those facts.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

Allow me to help.

Ya see scamp, Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Or one man and one man. Or one woman and one woman.

In every State. And there's not a thing you can do about it.

See how that works?

LOL!

No Skylar, Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

We know this .

Because that is what the voices in your head tell you.

Yes, that is what God tells me.

 

[Syriusly]

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).

The only one saying that the Courts must treat homosexuality the same way as polyandry....is you. Citing yourself. And as the Obergefell ruling demonstrates, you have no idea what you're talking about. You made all sorts of assertions of what the court 'must do' and how they 'must' affirm your pseudo-legal assertions regarding that ruling.

So....how'd that work out for you?

OH! So you're saying that there is NOT a Fundamental Right to Marry?
.)

We have a right to marry- as we have a right to own guns.

Yet states have laws forbidding convicted felons of owning guns.

Are you saying we have no right to own guns?

What you're not quite bright enough to understand is that your right to marry is limited to your means to bear the responsibilities INTRINSIC TO THAT RIGHT.

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman. Thus your right to marry is sustained ONLY by your responsibility to apply for such, with a person whose gender is distinct from your own.

The Right to own and effectively use a firearm in defense of your life and the lives of those around you, and the means to exercise your God-given Rights, is sustained by your responsibility to demonstrate your worthiness of trust, to not use that firearm to the detriment of the means of others to exercise their own rights.

This is what every child who went to school in the before the 1990s was taught and knows it instinctively... your ignorance of those self-evident facts, does not alter those facts.

You have a 'god given right' to own a gun?

When did that happen?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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).

The only one saying that the Courts must treat homosexuality the same way as polyandry....is you. Citing yourself. And as the Obergefell ruling demonstrates, you have no idea what you're talking about. You made all sorts of assertions of what the court 'must do' and how they 'must' affirm your pseudo-legal assertions regarding that ruling.

So....how'd that work out for you?

OH! So you're saying that there is NOT a Fundamental Right to Marry?
.)

We have a right to marry- as we have a right to own guns.

Yet states have laws forbidding convicted felons of owning guns.

Are you saying we have no right to own guns?

What you're not quite bright enough to understand is that your right to marry is limited to your means to bear the responsibilities INTRINSIC TO THAT RIGHT.

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman. Thus your right to marry is sustained ONLY by your responsibility to apply for such, with a person whose gender is distinct from your own.

The Right to own and effectively use a firearm in defense of your life and the lives of those around you, and the means to exercise your God-given Rights, is sustained by your responsibility to demonstrate your worthiness of trust, to not use that firearm to the detriment of the means of others to exercise their own rights.

This is what every child who went to school in the before the 1990s was taught and knows it instinctively... your ignorance of those self-evident facts, does not alter those facts.

You have a 'god given right' to own a gun?

When did that happen?

Not just to own, but to effectively USE that firearm in defense of my God-given Rights.

But that all happened when my Creator endowed my life, to me; with that life, the right to pursue the fulfillment of that life and the responsibility to defend it from those who would take my life and the means to exercise my rights.

That is the fundamental principle upon which America rests.

But in fairness to you... as a proponent of Foreign Ideas Hostile to American Principle, there was NO WAY you could have known THAT!

 

[Syriusly]

The only one saying that the Courts must treat homosexuality the same way as polyandry....is you. Citing yourself. And as the Obergefell ruling demonstrates, you have no idea what you're talking about. You made all sorts of assertions of what the court 'must do' and how they 'must' affirm your pseudo-legal assertions regarding that ruling.

So....how'd that work out for you?

OH! So you're saying that there is NOT a Fundamental Right to Marry?
.)

We have a right to marry- as we have a right to own guns.

Yet states have laws forbidding convicted felons of owning guns.

Are you saying we have no right to own guns?

What you're not quite bright enough to understand is that your right to marry is limited to your means to bear the responsibilities INTRINSIC TO THAT RIGHT.

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman. Thus your right to marry is sustained ONLY by your responsibility to apply for such, with a person whose gender is distinct from your own.

The Right to own and effectively use a firearm in defense of your life and the lives of those around you, and the means to exercise your God-given Rights, is sustained by your responsibility to demonstrate your worthiness of trust, to not use that firearm to the detriment of the means of others to exercise their own rights.

This is what every child who went to school in the before the 1990s was taught and knows it instinctively... your ignorance of those self-evident facts, does not alter those facts.

You have a 'god given right' to own a gun?

When did that happen?

That happened when my Creator endowed my life, to me; with that life, the right to pursue the fulfillment of that life and the responsibility to defend it from those who would take my life and the means to exercise my rights.

So God gave you the right to own an F-16 in order to defend your rights?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

OH! So you're saying that there is NOT a Fundamental Right to Marry?
.)

We have a right to marry- as we have a right to own guns.

Yet states have laws forbidding convicted felons of owning guns.

Are you saying we have no right to own guns?

What you're not quite bright enough to understand is that your right to marry is limited to your means to bear the responsibilities INTRINSIC TO THAT RIGHT.

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman. Thus your right to marry is sustained ONLY by your responsibility to apply for such, with a person whose gender is distinct from your own.

The Right to own and effectively use a firearm in defense of your life and the lives of those around you, and the means to exercise your God-given Rights, is sustained by your responsibility to demonstrate your worthiness of trust, to not use that firearm to the detriment of the means of others to exercise their own rights.

This is what every child who went to school in the before the 1990s was taught and knows it instinctively... your ignorance of those self-evident facts, does not alter those facts.

You have a 'god given right' to own a gun?

When did that happen?

That happened when my Creator endowed my life, to me; with that life, the right to pursue the fulfillment of that life and the responsibility to defend it from those who would take my life and the means to exercise my rights.

So God gave you the right to own an F-16 in order to defend your rights?

If I need an F-16 to defend my rights, then yes... you betcha.

What you do not seem to be capable of understanding is that I am bound to sacred duty to ERASE THOSE WHO THREATEN MY MEANS TO EXERCISE MY RIGHTS.

Do you understand that? I am OBLIGATED TO DEFEND MY MEANS TO EXERCISE MY RIGHTS, by destroying those who seek to prevent me from doing so.

This is a very serious responsibility... which requires absolute certainty. Thus the pause between the attempt to usurp the right and the destruction of the usurper. To do so, one must have a valid moral justification, thus one must know through valid evidence and upon sound reasoning, that the effort to usurp is deliberate and having effected every available potential alternative remedy, there is no means to sustain the means to exercise one's rights, except for the destruction of the usurper(s).

You should probably consult the Charter of American Principles... as you are CLEARLY as ignorant as a stone, with regard to what rights are, from where they come and how they are sustained.

(Reader, what you're witnessing is a British Socialist posing as a US Citizen, caught in the gulf of Ignorance common to that lowly species.)

 

[Syriusly]

We have a right to marry- as we have a right to own guns.

Yet states have laws forbidding convicted felons of owning guns.

Are you saying we have no right to own guns?

What you're not quite bright enough to understand is that your right to marry is limited to your means to bear the responsibilities INTRINSIC TO THAT RIGHT.

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman. Thus your right to marry is sustained ONLY by your responsibility to apply for such, with a person whose gender is distinct from your own.

The Right to own and effectively use a firearm in defense of your life and the lives of those around you, and the means to exercise your God-given Rights, is sustained by your responsibility to demonstrate your worthiness of trust, to not use that firearm to the detriment of the means of others to exercise their own rights.

This is what every child who went to school in the before the 1990s was taught and knows it instinctively... your ignorance of those self-evident facts, does not alter those facts.

You have a 'god given right' to own a gun?

When did that happen?

That happened when my Creator endowed my life, to me; with that life, the right to pursue the fulfillment of that life and the responsibility to defend it from those who would take my life and the means to exercise my rights.

So God gave you the right to own an F-16 in order to defend your rights?

If I need an F-16 to defend my rights, then yes... you betcha.

What you do not seem to be capable of understanding is that I am bound to sacred duty to ERASE THOSE WHO THREATEN MY MEANS TO EXERCISE MY RIGHTS.

Do you understand that? I am OBLIGATED TO DEFEND MY MEANS TO EXERCISE MY RIGHTS, by destroying those who seek to prevent me from doing so.

So you think you have the right to kill anyone you want to.