If polyamory is next, then polygamy isn't far behind

[Skylar]

I've read the Obergefell decision. I didn't note any 'love is love' logic used in it.

I am talking about the talking points used by supporters, not the crap in the SC decision.

I'll stick with the legal arguments, thank you. And none of them support polygamy nor even mention it.

The SSM side didn't stick to legal arguments only, why should you?

The 'SSM side' is anyone who ever made any argument advocating same sex marriage in the last 10 years. I'll stick with the legal argument, those arguments made in court by the actual plaintiffs.

And none of them involved the legalization of bigamy.

The "SSM" side I am talking about is the ones that used the courts to create a made up right to it. And plenty of their arguments were based on "love is love".

So I ask again, why doesn't that apply to plural marriage?

Pick a plaintiff's argument in Obergefell. Show me 'love is love' in their legal arguments.

And then show me Obergefell arguing for the legalization of bigamy.

You'll need to factually establish your assumptions first.

 

[martybegan]

Not surprising. Progressives want the most power held by the people as far away from their constituents as possible.

We have found that certain states in this country are incapable of defending human rights whether it be slavery, civil rights or gay rights

Our Federal Government has found it necessary to go in and kick their asses once in a while

Except when it comes to 2nd amendment rights, of course. Guns are icky.

Ask Heller

Nice dodge.

Dodge? Unless you're arguing that Heller didn't protect gun rights, its an explicit example of the federal courts doing what you insist the federal government doesn't do.

I don't think 'dodge' means what you think it means.

And then the localities put up roadblocks like excessive fees, and government approval processes for people who want to own a fire arm. In NYC I still have to pay over $1000 and wait 6 months to just keep a revolver in my apartment legally.

Righty ignores the fact that progressives seem to be A-OK with an explicit right being shit on, even AFTER winning cases, but scream bloody murder when anyone tries to mess with one of their made up rights.

When i can buy a revolver reasonably in NYC then Heller will mean something, until them we are just waiting for the next progressive president to pack the court with enough lock step oxygen thieves to overturn heller and Mcdonald.

 

[martybegan]

I am talking about the talking points used by supporters, not the crap in the SC decision.

I'll stick with the legal arguments, thank you. And none of them support polygamy nor even mention it.

The SSM side didn't stick to legal arguments only, why should you?

The 'SSM side' is anyone who ever made any argument advocating same sex marriage in the last 10 years. I'll stick with the legal argument, those arguments made in court by the actual plaintiffs.

And none of them involved the legalization of bigamy.

The "SSM" side I am talking about is the ones that used the courts to create a made up right to it. And plenty of their arguments were based on "love is love".

So I ask again, why doesn't that apply to plural marriage?

Pick a plaintiff's argument in Obergefell. Show me 'love is love' in their legal arguments.

And then show me Obergefell arguing for the legalization of bigamy.

You'll need to factually establish your assumptions first.

Again, not talking about the court here, but the lines public persuasion used by the SSM Advocates in general.

Please tell me why their reasons doesn't apply to plural marriage.

 

[Skylar]

We have found that certain states in this country are incapable of defending human rights whether it be slavery, civil rights or gay rights

Our Federal Government has found it necessary to go in and kick their asses once in a while

Except when it comes to 2nd amendment rights, of course. Guns are icky.

Ask Heller

Nice dodge.

Dodge? Unless you're arguing that Heller didn't protect gun rights, its an explicit example of the federal courts doing what you insist the federal government doesn't do.

I don't think 'dodge' means what you think it means.

And then the localities put up roadblocks like excessive fees, and government approval processes for people who want to own a fire arm. In NYC I still have to pay over $1000 and wait 6 months to just keep a revolver in my apartment legally.

Ah, so when RW shows you an explicit, unambiguous and obvious example of the federal government doing *exactly* what you insist they won't do -protecting the 2nd amendment- you ignore it, ignore the gun rights protected there, ignore the 2nd ammendment protections, ignore McDonald v. Chicago that extended those rights to the entire country....

.......and switch to some other aspect of gun rights that the federal government didn't protect.

So the federal government doesn't protect 2nd amendment rights......except when they do. Even by your own standards.

Just FYI, the federal government never protects ANY class of rights....if you simply ignore any instance of the federal government protecting rights.

 

[Skylar]

I'll stick with the legal arguments, thank you. And none of them support polygamy nor even mention it.

The SSM side didn't stick to legal arguments only, why should you?

The 'SSM side' is anyone who ever made any argument advocating same sex marriage in the last 10 years. I'll stick with the legal argument, those arguments made in court by the actual plaintiffs.

And none of them involved the legalization of bigamy.

The "SSM" side I am talking about is the ones that used the courts to create a made up right to it. And plenty of their arguments were based on "love is love".

So I ask again, why doesn't that apply to plural marriage?

Pick a plaintiff's argument in Obergefell. Show me 'love is love' in their legal arguments.

And then show me Obergefell arguing for the legalization of bigamy.

You'll need to factually establish your assumptions first.

Again, not talking about the court here, but the lines public persuasion used by the SSM Advocates in general.

I'm neither adopting nor defending *every* argument made by any SSM advocate anywhere in the last 10 years. I'm discussing the legal arguments. As its the only standard relevant to the recognition under the law.

Please tell me why their reasons doesn't apply to plural marriage.

'Love is love' isn't a legal argument. Nor is the basis for any ruling.

Which might explain why it hasn't legalized plural marriage.

 

[rightwinger]

So, in other words

Fuck the States

Not surprising. Progressives want the most power held by the people as far away from their constituents as possible.

We have found that certain states in this country are incapable of defending human rights whether it be slavery, civil rights or gay rights

Our Federal Government has found it necessary to go in and kick their asses once in a while

Except when it comes to 2nd amendment rights, of course. Guns are icky.

Ask Heller

Nice dodge.

Do you understand what a dodge is?

Heller is a case where the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT forced the District of Columbia to abandon their stricter firearm regulations

 

[Skylar]

Not surprising. Progressives want the most power held by the people as far away from their constituents as possible.

We have found that certain states in this country are incapable of defending human rights whether it be slavery, civil rights or gay rights

Our Federal Government has found it necessary to go in and kick their asses once in a while

Except when it comes to 2nd amendment rights, of course. Guns are icky.

Ask Heller

Nice dodge.

Do you understand what a dodge is?

Heller is a case where the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT forced the District of Columbia to abandon their stricter firearm regulations

Sure Marty understands. His 'dodge' comment was one. As you offered an explicit example of the federal government doing exactly what you marty insists they don't do.

So he ran.

 

[rightwinger]

We have found that certain states in this country are incapable of defending human rights whether it be slavery, civil rights or gay rights

Our Federal Government has found it necessary to go in and kick their asses once in a while

Except when it comes to 2nd amendment rights, of course. Guns are icky.

Ask Heller

Nice dodge.

Dodge? Unless you're arguing that Heller didn't protect gun rights, its an explicit example of the federal courts doing what you insist the federal government doesn't do.

I don't think 'dodge' means what you think it means.

And then the localities put up roadblocks like excessive fees, and government approval processes for people who want to own a fire arm. In NYC I still have to pay over $1000 and wait 6 months to just keep a revolver in my apartment legally.

Righty ignores the fact that progressives seem to be A-OK with an explicit right being shit on, even AFTER winning cases, but scream bloody murder when anyone tries to mess with one of their made up rights.

When i can buy a revolver reasonably in NYC then Heller will mean something, until them we are just waiting for the next progressive president to pack the court with enough lock step oxygen thieves to overturn heller and Mcdonald.

When i can buy a revolver reasonably in NYC then Heller will mean something

You have a constitutional right to cheap firearms?

 

[Silhouette]

Pick a plaintiff's argument in Obergefell. Show me 'love is love' in their legal arguments.

And then show me Obergefell arguing for the legalization of bigamy.

You'll need to factually establish your assumptions first.

Again, not talking about the court here, but the lines public persuasion used by the SSM Advocates in general.

Please tell me why their reasons doesn't apply to plural marriage.

Skylar? You gonna answer his question?

 

[Skylar]

Pick a plaintiff's argument in Obergefell. Show me 'love is love' in their legal arguments.

And then show me Obergefell arguing for the legalization of bigamy.

You'll need to factually establish your assumptions first.

Again, not talking about the court here, but the lines public persuasion used by the SSM Advocates in general.

Please tell me why their reasons doesn't apply to plural marriage.

Skylar? You gonna answer his question?

I already have. Repeatedly. 'Love is love' isn't a legal argument. Thus, its hasn't made plural marriage legal.

Ignore as you wish.

 

[Katzndogz]

Plural marriage isn't legal yet. It's in the same legal position same sex marriage was in before it was legal.

 

[Skylar]

Plural marriage isn't legal yet. It's in the same legal position same sex marriage was in before it was legal.

No, plural marriage is bigamy. And is a crime. Its not in the same legal position as same sex marriage. Before Obergefell and Windsor, these marriages simply weren't recognized as being legally valid. There were no criminal penalties associated with them.

 

[martybegan]

Except when it comes to 2nd amendment rights, of course. Guns are icky.

Ask Heller

Nice dodge.

Dodge? Unless you're arguing that Heller didn't protect gun rights, its an explicit example of the federal courts doing what you insist the federal government doesn't do.

I don't think 'dodge' means what you think it means.

And then the localities put up roadblocks like excessive fees, and government approval processes for people who want to own a fire arm. In NYC I still have to pay over $1000 and wait 6 months to just keep a revolver in my apartment legally.

Righty ignores the fact that progressives seem to be A-OK with an explicit right being shit on, even AFTER winning cases, but scream bloody murder when anyone tries to mess with one of their made up rights.

When i can buy a revolver reasonably in NYC then Heller will mean something, until them we are just waiting for the next progressive president to pack the court with enough lock step oxygen thieves to overturn heller and Mcdonald.

When i can buy a revolver reasonably in NYC then Heller will mean something

You have a constitutional right to cheap firearms?

It's not the cost of the firearm, its the $1,000+ fee and the 6 month waiting period imposed by the government.

 

[martybegan]

We have found that certain states in this country are incapable of defending human rights whether it be slavery, civil rights or gay rights

Our Federal Government has found it necessary to go in and kick their asses once in a while

Except when it comes to 2nd amendment rights, of course. Guns are icky.

Ask Heller

Nice dodge.

Do you understand what a dodge is?

Heller is a case where the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT forced the District of Columbia to abandon their stricter firearm regulations

Sure Marty understands. His 'dodge' comment was one. As you offered an explicit example of the federal government doing exactly what you marty insists they don't do.

So he ran.

It's called having other things to do in life, asshole.

 

[martybegan]

Pick a plaintiff's argument in Obergefell. Show me 'love is love' in their legal arguments.

And then show me Obergefell arguing for the legalization of bigamy.

You'll need to factually establish your assumptions first.

Again, not talking about the court here, but the lines public persuasion used by the SSM Advocates in general.

Please tell me why their reasons doesn't apply to plural marriage.

Skylar? You gonna answer his question?

I already have. Repeatedly. 'Love is love' isn't a legal argument. Thus, its hasn't made plural marriage legal.

Ignore as you wish.

And I keep saying it isn't about the legal argument, it is about the moral argument made by supporters of SSM.

 

[martybegan]

Not surprising. Progressives want the most power held by the people as far away from their constituents as possible.

We have found that certain states in this country are incapable of defending human rights whether it be slavery, civil rights or gay rights

Our Federal Government has found it necessary to go in and kick their asses once in a while

Except when it comes to 2nd amendment rights, of course. Guns are icky.

Ask Heller

Nice dodge.

Do you understand what a dodge is?

Heller is a case where the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT forced the District of Columbia to abandon their stricter firearm regulations

The dodge is answering the "how" and ignoring the "why".

 

[martybegan]

The SSM side didn't stick to legal arguments only, why should you?

The 'SSM side' is anyone who ever made any argument advocating same sex marriage in the last 10 years. I'll stick with the legal argument, those arguments made in court by the actual plaintiffs.

And none of them involved the legalization of bigamy.

The "SSM" side I am talking about is the ones that used the courts to create a made up right to it. And plenty of their arguments were based on "love is love".

So I ask again, why doesn't that apply to plural marriage?

Pick a plaintiff's argument in Obergefell. Show me 'love is love' in their legal arguments.

And then show me Obergefell arguing for the legalization of bigamy.

You'll need to factually establish your assumptions first.

Again, not talking about the court here, but the lines public persuasion used by the SSM Advocates in general.

I'm neither adopting nor defending *every* argument made by any SSM advocate anywhere in the last 10 years. I'm discussing the legal arguments. As its the only standard relevant to the recognition under the law.

Please tell me why their reasons doesn't apply to plural marriage.

'Love is love' isn't a legal argument. Nor is the basis for any ruling.

Which might explain why it hasn't legalized plural marriage.

And I am discussing the moral argument right now, and you refuse to answer the question.

 

[rightwinger]

Ask Heller

Nice dodge.

Dodge? Unless you're arguing that Heller didn't protect gun rights, its an explicit example of the federal courts doing what you insist the federal government doesn't do.

I don't think 'dodge' means what you think it means.

And then the localities put up roadblocks like excessive fees, and government approval processes for people who want to own a fire arm. In NYC I still have to pay over $1000 and wait 6 months to just keep a revolver in my apartment legally.

Righty ignores the fact that progressives seem to be A-OK with an explicit right being shit on, even AFTER winning cases, but scream bloody murder when anyone tries to mess with one of their made up rights.

When i can buy a revolver reasonably in NYC then Heller will mean something, until them we are just waiting for the next progressive president to pack the court with enough lock step oxygen thieves to overturn heller and Mcdonald.

When i can buy a revolver reasonably in NYC then Heller will mean something

You have a constitutional right to cheap firearms?

It's not the cost of the firearm, its the $1,000+ fee and the 6 month waiting period imposed by the government.

Sucks to be you....move to Alabama

 

[rightwinger]

We have found that certain states in this country are incapable of defending human rights whether it be slavery, civil rights or gay rights

Our Federal Government has found it necessary to go in and kick their asses once in a while

Except when it comes to 2nd amendment rights, of course. Guns are icky.

Ask Heller

Nice dodge.

Do you understand what a dodge is?

Heller is a case where the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT forced the District of Columbia to abandon their stricter firearm regulations

The dodge is answering the "how" and ignoring the "why".

At first you claimed the Federal Government does not defend gun rights at all

Who is guilty of a dodge?

 

[martybegan]

Nice dodge.

Dodge? Unless you're arguing that Heller didn't protect gun rights, its an explicit example of the federal courts doing what you insist the federal government doesn't do.

I don't think 'dodge' means what you think it means.

And then the localities put up roadblocks like excessive fees, and government approval processes for people who want to own a fire arm. In NYC I still have to pay over $1000 and wait 6 months to just keep a revolver in my apartment legally.

Righty ignores the fact that progressives seem to be A-OK with an explicit right being shit on, even AFTER winning cases, but scream bloody murder when anyone tries to mess with one of their made up rights.

When i can buy a revolver reasonably in NYC then Heller will mean something, until them we are just waiting for the next progressive president to pack the court with enough lock step oxygen thieves to overturn heller and Mcdonald.

When i can buy a revolver reasonably in NYC then Heller will mean something

You have a constitutional right to cheap firearms?

It's not the cost of the firearm, its the $1,000+ fee and the 6 month waiting period imposed by the government.

Sucks to be you....move to Alabama

When it comes to an explicit right, I shouldn't have to.

By your logic, (and more supported as abortion is a made up right) people in Alabama who don't like the abortion ban we all know they will pass if Roe ever gets overturned should "just move to NY".