If Christians are allowed to discriminate against gays ...

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The legal ban on plural marriage has not been tested in court as far as I know, so neither you nor I can say if advocates for it would prevail. But as I said, there are different issues.....different social and legal implications since the whole marriage concept and legal structure is predicated on a union of two people. It is more of a leap away from "traditional" marriage. It is idiotic to claim that there is no longer a sound legal reason to deny. If you read the Obergefell decision, you would know that same sex couples were granted the same rights as heterosexual couples-nothing more or less. Since hetero couples cannot legally marry a third person, it is clear that there does indeed remain some legal obstacles. In addition, same sex couples were able to claim discrimination because they were being treated differently from others who were essentially the same as them. It might be more difficult for those seeking plural marriage to claim discrimination, since no one is able to marry more than one person at a time. But, hey. who knows? A creative legal argument may emerge

There is no legal reason to limit marriage to anything less than the entire population (minus minors and those incapable of entering contract), now that the law excludes "one man to one women" which makes both the number and the following "not closely related" irrelevant.

That happened with the Obergfell case.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

Nope, do you?

Obergfell removed the requirement that one man can marry one women. There was a reason for that limit, to give a home for offspring that is balanced. If you now have a home in which a child cannot be created, the number is no longer applicable and would not withstand legal challenge.ll

LOL- where exactly did you come up with that 'reason'?

In homes where children couldn't be created before- should they not have been able to be married?

There is nothing in Obergefell that changes the Constitutionality of bans on multiple marriages.

Either multiple marriages are Constitutional- or they aren't.

Obergefell no more affects multiple marriages than Loving did.

"neither of those people can be married to someone else"

and the States compelling interest in denying this is........?

"and neither of them can be related to a degree"

and the States compelling interest in denying this..........?

Answer these and you should see your silliness

No one is taking the position at this point that there is or is not a compelling interest. We are not litigating this. It has not been tested and no one is taking a position on it. It seems that there is much that you're having difficulty grasping

 

[Syriusly]

Yep, the old "behavior is equal to race" thing is going to fall flat on its face as the tests at the USSC continue on these questions. Better brace yourself now for it rather than shatter from the impact later.

LOL- Silly Silly and her false equivalencies

 

[Pop23]

There is no legal reason to limit marriage to anything less than the entire population (minus minors and those incapable of entering contract), now that the law excludes "one man to one women" which makes both the number and the following "not closely related" irrelevant.

That happened with the Obergfell case.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

Nope, do you?

Obergfell removed the requirement that one man can marry one women. There was a reason for that limit, to give a home for offspring that is balanced. If you now have a home in which a child cannot be created, the number is no longer applicable and would not withstand legal challenge.ll

LOL- where exactly did you come up with that 'reason'?

In homes where children couldn't be created before- should they not have been able to be married?

There is nothing in Obergefell that changes the Constitutionality of bans on multiple marriages.

Either multiple marriages are Constitutional- or they aren't.

Obergefell no more affects multiple marriages than Loving did.

"neither of those people can be married to someone else"

and the States compelling interest in denying this is........?

"and neither of them can be related to a degree"

and the States compelling interest in denying this..........?

Answer these and you should see your silliness

No one is taking the position at this point that there is or is not a compelling interest. We are not litigating this. It has not been tested and no one is taking a position on it. It seems that there is much that you're having difficulty grasping

Unless you can answer the questions, then there is no question the relationships are valid. You could before Obergfell, you can't now. Give it a shot.

"neither of those people can be married to someone else"

and the States compelling interest in denying this is........?

"and neither of them can be related to a degree"

and the States compelling interest in denying this..........?

 

[Syriusly]

An argument for abortion.


Ditto

And you think it's funny. I think that should be sufficient evidence that you are mentally ill, and a danger to society..and thus should be locked up alongside those mutants you're responsible for breeding.

Now KG thinks that if you find what she posts funny- you should be locked up.

More and more fascist with every post.

No I think it's a sign of sociopathy to think it's funny that mentally ill people are breeding..and that the reason you find it so hilarious is that it provides a market for baby killing.

QUOTE]

I don't find any of your posts funny- no way I could find any of your vile attacks on humans 'funny'

Just in this thread you have announced how you believe large portions of America deserve death- and now that those who find your posts funny should be locked up.

Your comments, in reply to mine:

An argument for abortion.

Isn't that an indication that you think abortion is funny?

I don't find abortion funny- any more than I find heart surgery funny.

No more than i find your hate and bigotry funny.

 

[Pop23]

Hey Bootney Lee Farnsworth, have you noticed how they run from these?

"neither of those people can be married to someone else"

and the States compelling interest in denying this is........?

"and neither of them can be related to a degree"

and the States compelling interest in denying this..........?

Making me laugh my ass off

 

[Syriusly]

Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

Nope, do you?

Obergfell removed the requirement that one man can marry one women. There was a reason for that limit, to give a home for offspring that is balanced. If you now have a home in which a child cannot be created, the number is no longer applicable and would not withstand legal challenge.ll

LOL- where exactly did you come up with that 'reason'?

In homes where children couldn't be created before- should they not have been able to be married?

There is nothing in Obergefell that changes the Constitutionality of bans on multiple marriages.

Either multiple marriages are Constitutional- or they aren't.

Obergefell no more affects multiple marriages than Loving did.

"neither of those people can be married to someone else"

and the States compelling interest in denying this is........?

"and neither of them can be related to a degree"

and the States compelling interest in denying this..........?

Answer these and you should see your silliness

No one is taking the position at this point that there is or is not a compelling interest. We are not litigating this. It has not been tested and no one is taking a position on it. It seems that there is much that you're having difficulty grasping

Unless you can answer the questions, then there is no question the relationships are valid. You could before Obergfell, you can't now. Give it a shot.

"neither of those people can be married to someone else"

and the States compelling interest in denying this is........?

"and neither of them can be related to a degree"

and the States compelling interest in denying this..........?

I am not sure why you think anyone here has any obligation to defend state laws against polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage.

Neither Loving or Obergefell changed the Constitutionality of either.

If you think that either should be Constitutional- then logically you should have thought they should be Constitutional before Obergefell and before Loving.

 

[Syriusly]

Hey Bootney Lee Farnsworth, have you noticed how they run from these?

"neither of those people can be married to someone else"

and the States compelling interest in denying this is........?

"and neither of them can be related to a degree"

and the States compelling interest in denying this..........?

Making me laugh my ass off

I am laughing my ass off watching you try to get people to dance with your straw man.

 

[Pop23]

Nope, do you?

Obergfell removed the requirement that one man can marry one women. There was a reason for that limit, to give a home for offspring that is balanced. If you now have a home in which a child cannot be created, the number is no longer applicable and would not withstand legal challenge.ll

LOL- where exactly did you come up with that 'reason'?

In homes where children couldn't be created before- should they not have been able to be married?

There is nothing in Obergefell that changes the Constitutionality of bans on multiple marriages.

Either multiple marriages are Constitutional- or they aren't.

Obergefell no more affects multiple marriages than Loving did.

"neither of those people can be married to someone else"

and the States compelling interest in denying this is........?

"and neither of them can be related to a degree"

and the States compelling interest in denying this..........?

Answer these and you should see your silliness

No one is taking the position at this point that there is or is not a compelling interest. We are not litigating this. It has not been tested and no one is taking a position on it. It seems that there is much that you're having difficulty grasping

Unless you can answer the questions, then there is no question the relationships are valid. You could before Obergfell, you can't now. Give it a shot.

"neither of those people can be married to someone else"

and the States compelling interest in denying this is........?

"and neither of them can be related to a degree"

and the States compelling interest in denying this..........?

I am not sure why you think anyone here has any obligation to defend state laws against polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage.

Neither Loving or Obergefell changed the Constitutionality of either.

If you think that either should be Constitutional- then logically you should have thought they should be Constitutional before Obergefell and before Loving.

BUT YOU CAN'T DEFEND THE CHANGE. Loving HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MODIFICATION REQUIRED TO ACCOMMODATE SAME SEX. OBERGFELL DID!

You could easily argue the Compelling State Interest prior to Obergfell, you can't make an argument after or it indicts your position.

So answer:

"neither of those people can be married to someone else"

and the States compelling interest in denying this is........?

"and neither of them can be related to a degree"

and the States compelling interest in denying this..........?

 

[koshergrl]

Being crazy isn't a choice.

That doesn't mean that pedophilia is a sexual orientation. It's a sexual PERVERSION. It's a psychiatric disorder.

It's an indication that there is something terribly wrong with a person's ability to function safely as an adult in society, and is sufficient cause to lock someone away forever.

But ONLY because that condition is likely to cause injury to a child.

As for homosexuality? It may or may not be caused by a mental disorder. I am not going to rule it out. Either way, homosexuality is NOT a danger to the public, so I am not sure why the other guy felt it necessary to bring it up. There's not child-safety issue.

Homosexuality isn't necessarily a danger..at any rate, I don't care what people do in their bedrooms.

I do care what they're preaching in the schools, though. And if the schools are preaching homosexuality and anal sex and pedophilia as an *orientation*..then I am going to have a problem with them.

Unfortunately it has become almost impossible to separate out the crazies who are a threat, from the crazies who aren't.

So I think we can be reasonably certain that any idiot who proselytizes homosexuality and pedophilia to children, or who encourages others to do so, is a threat to society and children and should be locked up.

That means that Progressive Puke dirtbag and almost every lezbo that this site has ever entertained.

 

[Syriusly]

 

[Pop23]

Using Meme's to deflect. Nice try dimwit

"neither of those people can be married to someone else"

and the States compelling interest in denying this is........?

"and neither of them can be related to a degree"

and the States compelling interest in denying this..........?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Hey Bootney Lee Farnsworth, have you noticed how they run from these?

"neither of those people can be married to someone else"

and the States compelling interest in denying this is........?

"and neither of them can be related to a degree"

and the States compelling interest in denying this..........?

Making me laugh my ass off

And you are making me laugh with your straw man and appeal to hypocrisy arguments

 

[Syriusly]

LOL- where exactly did you come up with that 'reason'?

In homes where children couldn't be created before- should they not have been able to be married?

There is nothing in Obergefell that changes the Constitutionality of bans on multiple marriages.

Either multiple marriages are Constitutional- or they aren't.

Obergefell no more affects multiple marriages than Loving did.

"neither of those people can be married to someone else"

and the States compelling interest in denying this is........?

"and neither of them can be related to a degree"

and the States compelling interest in denying this..........?

Answer these and you should see your silliness

No one is taking the position at this point that there is or is not a compelling interest. We are not litigating this. It has not been tested and no one is taking a position on it. It seems that there is much that you're having difficulty grasping

Unless you can answer the questions, then there is no question the relationships are valid. You could before Obergfell, you can't now. Give it a shot.

"neither of those people can be married to someone else"

and the States compelling interest in denying this is........?

"and neither of them can be related to a degree"

and the States compelling interest in denying this..........?

I am not sure why you think anyone here has any obligation to defend state laws against polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage.

Neither Loving or Obergefell changed the Constitutionality of either.

If you think that either should be Constitutional- then logically you should have thought they should be Constitutional before Obergefell and before Loving.

BUT YOU CAN'T DEFEND THE CHANGE. Loving HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MODIFICATION REQUIRED TO ACCOMMODATE SAME SEX. OBERGFELL DID!

Oh I can defend Obergefell- if you want me to defend Obergefell I am glad to.

yes- Loving had nothing to do with same gender marriage.
And Obergefell had nothing to do with opposite gender marriage.

Both though revolved around the state being unable to provide a compelling state interest in restricting marriages based on gender- or on race.

And by the way- in both cases- the States claimed that the laws were in part to 'protect children'- and in both cases the courts said- no.

 

[Syriusly]

Using Meme's to deflect. Nice try dimwit

"neither of those people can be married to someone else"

and the States compelling interest in denying this is........?

"and neither of them can be related to a degree"

and the States compelling interest in denying this..........?

Using a straw man argument to attack Obergefell- nah not going to dance with your straw man- you want to argue Obergefell- I am glad to.

But I don't care whether you want to marry your sister wives or not- if you want to- go challenge the law.

 

[Pop23]

Hey Bootney Lee Farnsworth, have you noticed how they run from these?

"neither of those people can be married to someone else"

and the States compelling interest in denying this is........?

"and neither of them can be related to a degree"

and the States compelling interest in denying this..........?

Making me laugh my ass off

And you are making me laugh with your straw man and appeal to hypocrisy arguments

Lets see, The argument was still valid after Loving v Virginia, but you can't answer after Obergfell!

Your silence is GOLDEN! ABSOLUTELY GOLDEN!

 

[Pop23]

"neither of those people can be married to someone else"

and the States compelling interest in denying this is........?

"and neither of them can be related to a degree"

and the States compelling interest in denying this..........?

Answer these and you should see your silliness

No one is taking the position at this point that there is or is not a compelling interest. We are not litigating this. It has not been tested and no one is taking a position on it. It seems that there is much that you're having difficulty grasping

Unless you can answer the questions, then there is no question the relationships are valid. You could before Obergfell, you can't now. Give it a shot.

"neither of those people can be married to someone else"

and the States compelling interest in denying this is........?

"and neither of them can be related to a degree"

and the States compelling interest in denying this..........?

I am not sure why you think anyone here has any obligation to defend state laws against polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage.

Neither Loving or Obergefell changed the Constitutionality of either.

If you think that either should be Constitutional- then logically you should have thought they should be Constitutional before Obergefell and before Loving.

BUT YOU CAN'T DEFEND THE CHANGE. Loving HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MODIFICATION REQUIRED TO ACCOMMODATE SAME SEX. OBERGFELL DID!

Oh I can defend Obergefell- if you want me to defend Obergefell I am glad to.

yes- Loving had nothing to do with same gender marriage.
And Obergefell had nothing to do with opposite gender marriage.

Both though revolved around the state being unable to provide a compelling state interest in restricting marriages based on gender- or on race.

And by the way- in both cases- the States claimed that the laws were in part to 'protect children'- and in both cases the courts said- no.

Then you easily can answer the posed question, Right?

"neither of those people can be married to someone else"

and the States compelling interest in denying this is........?

"and neither of them can be related to a degree"

and the States compelling interest in denying this..........?

 

[Syriusly]

Hey Bootney Lee Farnsworth, have you noticed how they run from these?

"neither of those people can be married to someone else"

and the States compelling interest in denying this is........?

"and neither of them can be related to a degree"

and the States compelling interest in denying this..........?

Making me laugh my ass off

And you are making me laugh with your straw man and appeal to hypocrisy arguments

Lets see, The argument was still valid after Loving v Virginia, but you can't answer after Obergfell!

Your silence is GOLDEN! ABSOLUTELY GOLDEN!

Frankly Pop- I have no idea what you think your argument is.

You want to state your 'argument' in plain language and I will address it.

 

[Pop23]

Using Meme's to deflect. Nice try dimwit

"neither of those people can be married to someone else"

and the States compelling interest in denying this is........?

"and neither of them can be related to a degree"

and the States compelling interest in denying this..........?

Using a straw man argument to attack Obergefell- nah not going to dance with your straw man- you want to argue Obergefell- I am glad to.

But I don't care whether you want to marry your sister wives or not- if you want to- go challenge the law.

OMG, it's a basic legal argument based on what and how you argued in support of same sex marriage.

If you are now calling it a strawman, then you indict your position prior to Obergfell.

MAKING YOU A COWARD!

"neither of those people can be married to someone else"

and the States compelling interest in denying this is........?

"and neither of them can be related to a degree"

and the States compelling interest in denying this..........?

 

[Syriusly]

No one is taking the position at this point that there is or is not a compelling interest. We are not litigating this. It has not been tested and no one is taking a position on it. It seems that there is much that you're having difficulty grasping

Unless you can answer the questions, then there is no question the relationships are valid. You could before Obergfell, you can't now. Give it a shot.

"neither of those people can be married to someone else"

and the States compelling interest in denying this is........?

"and neither of them can be related to a degree"

and the States compelling interest in denying this..........?

I am not sure why you think anyone here has any obligation to defend state laws against polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage.

Neither Loving or Obergefell changed the Constitutionality of either.

If you think that either should be Constitutional- then logically you should have thought they should be Constitutional before Obergefell and before Loving.

BUT YOU CAN'T DEFEND THE CHANGE. Loving HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MODIFICATION REQUIRED TO ACCOMMODATE SAME SEX. OBERGFELL DID!

Oh I can defend Obergefell- if you want me to defend Obergefell I am glad to.

yes- Loving had nothing to do with same gender marriage.
And Obergefell had nothing to do with opposite gender marriage.

Both though revolved around the state being unable to provide a compelling state interest in restricting marriages based on gender- or on race.

And by the way- in both cases- the States claimed that the laws were in part to 'protect children'- and in both cases the courts said- no.

Then you easily can answer the posed question, Right?

"neither of those people can be married to someone else"

and the States compelling interest in denying this is........?

"and neither of them can be related to a degree"

and the States compelling interest in denying this..........?

Actually I can. Because I have read the court cases.

But I won't- because I am not dancing with your straw man.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Does Obergefell say that a father can marry hid adult daughter. Show us where.

I agree that Obergefell was not broad enough to be interpreted as extending marriage to include polygamy or incest. That is unquestionable.

Obergefell did set a precedent with applicable reasoning for polygamists or sister-bangers to seek such an extension. The Court would need to do some major tap dancing to carve out exceptions for extending rights to polygamists or sister-bangers.

But, it happens all the time, because the Court has lost its integrity. Consistent reason has flown the coupe and political agendas have replaced it. I am in no way as smart as the guys in black, so I know they had to have considered my line of reasoning on how to deal with marriage. They simply chose to ignore that reasoning because see above.

And in the end, it was fruitless to try and skirt polygamy and sister-banging marriage just to avoid the childish criticisms of the anti-gay-marriage horde. You can bet your ass that the Court is going to eventually be forced to expand marriage rights to polygamists or sister-bangers, as it should have done in the first place, and could have done simply by saying these few words:

Marriage is a contract.

It's shit like this that makes me want to put actual, practicing lawyers from schools OTHER THAN Yale and Harvard on the SCOTUS.