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

[Skylar]

Were you petitioning for marriage equality this last year or marriage exclusivity? Because when the public was being asked their opinion on this, you were selling your product as "marriage equality". Now some orientations are not equal? Who decides that? You? Utah decided polygamy isn't illegal anymore.

No, they didn't. They decided cohabitation wasn't polygamy. Polygamy is still quite illegal in Utah.

Yes... and it is quite the same with degenerates who seek to co-habitate with one another, playing house in the pretense of Marriage.

The newly formed "SUPREME LEGISLATURE!" merely err'd in what they can decide and what they cannot. People of the same gender are no more capable of marriage than is a monkey capable of creating a grape.

ROFLMNAO! And you... BOUGHT IT!

Laughing....you still haven't clued into the fact that your subjective personal opinion means nothing legally?

Sorry Keyes, but in any issue of constitutionality where you say one thing and the USSC says another, the USSC wins.

Get used to the idea.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

By your own admission same sex couples can (and almost certainly do) have marriage certificates issued by your County, your State.

And my State may also issue them a certificate which assures the reader that they are members of the family Lamia... accompanied with a lovely rendering to prove it:

That; however, would actually NOT provide that they are in REALITY, physically half snake... leaving such only true with regard to their character.​

 

[Skylar]

By your own admission same sex couples can (and almost certainly do) have marriage certificates issued by your County, your State.

And my State may also issue them a certificate which assures the reader that they are members of the family Lamia... accompanied with a lovely rendering to prove it:

When they do, come find us. Until then, you're quite literally offering us your imagination as evidence.

....As relativists are wot to do.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Laughing....you still haven't clued into the fact that your subjective personal opinion means nothing legally?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

When they do, come find us. Until then, you're quite literally offering us your imagination as evidence.

....As relativists are wot to do.[sic]

Well the precedence (establishment of the would-be principle) has been set... so there's nothing stopping the newly formed "SUPREME LEGISLATURE!" from doing so, except for a vote being called on the issue.

What you're trying desperately to avoid is to demonstrate how THAT would be at all DIFFERENT from licensing those wholly unsuited for Marriage... .

But if it helps, your every post which seeks to deflect from your means to do so; wherein you spent decades assuring everyone that the PURPOSE of Legalizing Homosexuality was to PROMOTE EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW!, proves you and your cause to be a LIE!

As NOW you come to advise the Reader of this forum that EVERYONE Can't LEGALLY BE DEFINED AS a Doctor, or an Electrical Engineer, or Half Snake?

Why is it that ONLY HOMOSEXUALS get to be LEGALLY DEFINED AS SOMETHING THEY'RE NOT?

 

[Skylar]

When they do, come find us. Until then, you're quite literally offering us your imagination as evidence.

....As relativists are wot to do.[sic]

Well the precedence (establishment of the would-be principle) has been set... so there's nothing stopping the newly formed "SUPREME LEGISLATURE!" from doing so, except for a vote being called on the issue.

The precedent is set....according to you and your subjective opinion. The same subjective opinion that spawned your prediction that the Obergefell ruling was going to rule against same sex marriage.

You were laughably, comically wrong with your previous predictions and understanding of precedent.

But this time its different, huh?

 

[Silhouette]

When they do, come find us. Until then, you're quite literally offering us your imagination as evidence.

....As relativists are wot to do.

What is "wot"?

Do you or do you not believe in marriage equality? And if yes, how does that exclude polygamists, exactly? We are talking about one sexual orientation (homosexuality) vs another (polyamory). The legal differences please? Remember, polygamy was decriminalized in Utah recently.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You were laughably, comically wrong with your previous predictions and understanding of precedent.

Yes... it is true. I was wrong in my trust that those sitting upon the US Supreme Court, would not impart to themselves the powers of a "SUPREME LEGISLATURE"... by setting aside their sworn objective duty, in preference of their own subjective need.

It is true that my subjective need for the judiciary to be objective, clouded my judgment... thus once again demonstrating the fatal flaw common to SUBJECTIVISM.

Thank you for pointing that out. As it shows how even a person who instinctively understands the fatal flaws common to Subjectivism... can be injured by the inherent weakness that such produces, if one lends it even the slightest encouragement.

That shame is mine and mine alone. But I will endeavor to learn from that mistake.

Which strikes the difference between the lowly Relativist and The American.

 

[Skylar]

When they do, come find us. Until then, you're quite literally offering us your imagination as evidence.

....As relativists are wot to do.

What is "wot"?

Do you or do you not believe in marriage equality? And if yes, how does that exclude polygamists, exactly? We are talking about one sexual orientation (homosexuality) vs another (polyamory). The legal differences please?

Polyamory isn't a sexual orientation. Ending that gibberish.

And if you want to legalize polygamy, make your argument.

Remember, polygamy was decriminalized in Utah recently.

No, it wasn't. Cohabitation was no longer recognized as polygamy in Utah. Polygamy is still illegal.

Try again.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

When they do, come find us. Until then, you're quite literally offering us your imagination as evidence.

....As relativists are wot to do.[sic]

Well the precedence (establishment of the would-be principle) has been set... so there's nothing stopping the newly formed "SUPREME LEGISLATURE!" from doing so, except for a vote being called on the issue.

The precedent is set....according to you and your subjective opinion. The same subjective opinion that spawned your prediction that the Obergefell ruling was going to rule against same sex marriage.

You were laughably, comically wrong with your previous predictions and understanding of precedent.

But this time its different, huh?

Thank you Skylar, for pointing out the close affiliation between subjectivism and error... .

It's good to have you on the team.

 

[Silhouette]

Polyamory isn't a sexual orientation. Ending that gibberish.

OK, homosexuality isn't a sexual orientation either...ending that gibberish. If the homosexual can be self-diagnosed as "fixated and unchanging in their sexual attraction to the same gender" then the polygamist can be self-diagnosed as "fixated and unchanging in their sexual attraction to multiple sex partners". When both are self-diagnosed, who decides which is right and which isn't? The states or SCOTUS?...lol..

Answer the question: who will decide polygamy marriage, the states or SCOTUS. C'mon Skylar, you're very verbose on your legal prognosticating usually.

 

[Skylar]

You were laughably, comically wrong with your previous predictions and understanding of precedent.

Yes... it is true. I was wrong in my trust that those sitting upon the US Supreme Court, would not impart to themselves the powers of a "SUPREME LEGISLATURE"... by setting aside their sworn objective duty, in preference of their own subjective need.

So you've admitted that your predictions of court outcomes is wrong. And yet you've based your entire argument on your ability to predict the outcome court cases.

Its like watching a dog chase its own tail.

It is true that my subjective need for the judiciary to be objective, clouded my judgment... thus once again demonstrating the fatal flaw common to SUBJECTIVISM.

You citing you isn't 'objective'. But subjective. And your personal opinion is the only source you're offering us.

Which establishes nothing objectively. You can't get around that, my little relativist.

 

[Skylar]

Polyamory isn't a sexual orientation. Ending that gibberish.

OK, homosexuality isn't a sexual orientation either...ending that gibberish.

The basis of the Obergefell ruling isn't that homosexuality is a sexual orientation. So what relevance does your imaginary distinction have to the ruling?

Answer the question: who will decide polygamy marriage, the states or SCOTUS. C'mon Skylar, you're very verbose on your legal prognosticating usually.

The issue is already decided. You're speaking of non-existent legal battle. Talk to me when you have a specific case. Its when we get specific that I get 'verbose'.

And as Obergefell demonstrated, surprisingly accurate.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

When they do, come find us. Until then, you're quite literally offering us your imagination as evidence.

....As relativists are wot to do.

What is "wot"?

Do you or do you not believe in marriage equality? And if yes, how does that exclude polygamists, exactly? We are talking about one sexual orientation (homosexuality) vs another (polyamory). The legal differences please?

Polyamory isn't a sexual orientation. Ending that gibberish.

Just as Sexual Deviancy is not Race.

Now you've spent the best part of the last several years citing legal precedent which was exclusively the subject of race... demanding that such was speaking to the sexuality of Degeneracy.

Now if Degeneracy is a sexuality, what pray tell provides that polyamory is not also 'sexuality'?

Does it not seek to establish that a man is attracted sexually to multiple individuals and that the attraction itself deems the legal licensing of such to be recognized by the Government? And would your own reasoning not require that where the sexual degeneracy of homosexuality is licensed, that to not license the other kinks is a definitive indication of inequity before the law?

Explain your position in specific and objective terms... .

 

[Skylar]

When they do, come find us. Until then, you're quite literally offering us your imagination as evidence.

....As relativists are wot to do.[sic]

Well the precedence (establishment of the would-be principle) has been set... so there's nothing stopping the newly formed "SUPREME LEGISLATURE!" from doing so, except for a vote being called on the issue.

The precedent is set....according to you and your subjective opinion. The same subjective opinion that spawned your prediction that the Obergefell ruling was going to rule against same sex marriage.

You were laughably, comically wrong with your previous predictions and understanding of precedent.

But this time its different, huh?

Thank you Skylar, for pointing out the close affiliation between subjectivism and error... .

More accurately, I've drawn the close affiliation between YOUR subjective opinion and error. As your record of predicting the outcome of court cases is essentially one of perfect failure.

And yet you're going to use your subjective opinion as the basis of *more* predictions?

Can you see why that might not work out well?

 

[Skylar]

When they do, come find us. Until then, you're quite literally offering us your imagination as evidence.

....As relativists are wot to do.

What is "wot"?

Do you or do you not believe in marriage equality? And if yes, how does that exclude polygamists, exactly? We are talking about one sexual orientation (homosexuality) vs another (polyamory). The legal differences please?

Polyamory isn't a sexual orientation. Ending that gibberish.

Just as Sexual Deviancy is not Race.

Nor has anyone claimed that it was. The stuffing from your strawmen is getting everywhere.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You were laughably, comically wrong with your previous predictions and understanding of precedent.

Yes... it is true. I was wrong in my trust that those sitting upon the US Supreme Court, would not impart to themselves the powers of a "SUPREME LEGISLATURE"... by setting aside their sworn objective duty, in preference of their own subjective need.

So you've admitted that your predictions of court outcomes is wrong.

Yes... I am admitting that my subjective need was for the former Supreme Judiciary to not become the Supreme Legislature and merely establish law, by virtue of a VOTE by a majority of nine individuals; overriding the will of the vast majority of 300 million people, who voted for the vast majority of the Legislators, who long debated and voted to recognize the natural defining standards of marriage, and who voted for the vast majority of the Chief Executives who signed those bills into law in the VAST MAJORITY OF THE STATES.

I admit it, I NEEDED THAT TO BE THE CASE... because I NEED MY COUNTRY TO REMAIN VIABLE. And this because of my objective understanding of the consequences of a culture which strips itself of objective governance.

What I should have done, is held to my objective understanding that the Ideological Left is incapable of objectivity, thus given the majority of the individuals on the former SCOTUS, being Leftists... that there was truly no hope that they would not set aside their sacred oaths to 'support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that they would bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that they took those obligations freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help them God."

It is now irrefutable that the Leftists on the SUPREME COURT, DID in fact:

take their oaths, purposefully intending to evade the certainty that they would NOT HAVE BEEN SEATED ON THE BENCH, IF THEY HAD STATED THEIR TRUE INTENTIONS.

I should have remained true to my higher intellect, and not succumbed to the animalistic hope, which sound reason indicated was not even possible, let alone likely.

Thank you Skylar for pointing out the foolishness that comes with subjectivism.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

More accurately, I've drawn the close affiliation between YOUR subjective opinion and error.

Yes you did... You're correct. I departed from objective reasoning and as reason requires, in so doing I opened myself up to the humiliation of error.

Thank you for pointing out the irrepressible affiliation between subjectivism and error.

Which does explain why you are so often found in that same, unenviable place.

 

[Skylar]

You were laughably, comically wrong with your previous predictions and understanding of precedent.

Yes... it is true. I was wrong in my trust that those sitting upon the US Supreme Court, would not impart to themselves the powers of a "SUPREME LEGISLATURE"... by setting aside their sworn objective duty, in preference of their own subjective need.

So you've admitted that your predictions of court outcomes is wrong.

Yes... I am admitting that my subjective need was for the former Supreme Judiciary to not become the Supreme Legislature and merely establish law, by virtue of a VOTE by a majority of nine individuals; overriding the will of the vast majority of 300 million people, who voted for the vast majority of the Legislators, who long debated and voted to recognize the natural defining standards of marriage, and who voted for the vast majority of the Chief Executives who signed those bills into law in the VAST MAJORITY OF THE STATES.

Then by your own admission you recognize that your subjective opinions are absymal at predicting the outcome of court cases.

You've established a high correlary between your subjective opinion and not knowing what the fuck you're talking about regarding the courts.

But this time its different, huh?

 

[Skylar]

More accurately, I've drawn the close affiliation between YOUR subjective opinion and error.

Yes you did... You're correct. I departed from objective reasoning and as reason requires, in so doing I opened myself up to the humiliation of error.

Thank you for pointing out the irrepressible affiliation between subjectivism and error.

More accurately, I've pointed out the affiliation of your subjective opinion and error.

As you'll remember, I cited my subjective opinion on the outcome of the Obergefell ruling. And I nailed it. I was correct in the outcome of the ruling, the split, who was going to write it, what legal principles they were going to use, even what cases they would cite as precedent.

Now how is it that your subjective opinion produced such comically inept results....while mine were very nearly a crystal ball?