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

[martybegan]

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?

Again, if they are "defending" gun rights, why don't I have mine back yet?

 

[rightwinger]

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".

NY has a right to set the conditions for purchasing a gun. Why don't you get the NRA to take them to court?

 

[rightwinger]

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?

Again, if they are "defending" gun rights, why don't I have mine back yet?

Still dodging aren't you

Backing off your claim that the Federal Government does not defend the second amendment?

 

[martybegan]

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".

NY has a right to set the conditions for purchasing a gun. Why don't you get the NRA to take them to court?

They don't have the right to create de facto bans that have the sole purpose of discouraging ownership of firearms by law abiding citizens.

How about we add a 6 month wait and $1000 fee to abortions? Oh wait, that's a "right" you LIKE.

Totally different.

And the NRA will get around to it, the State level group has sued repeatedly and been told to go to hell by local progressive judges.

 

[martybegan]

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?

Again, if they are "defending" gun rights, why don't I have mine back yet?

Still dodging aren't you

Backing off your claim that the Federal Government does not defend the second amendment?

I still don't see that defense by me, so its not a dodge, its looking for results, and not finding them.

 

[Skylar]

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.

You're demanding I adopt and defend an argument I've never made. And you've fled from any discussion of the arguments I have made. Or any that have been made in court. Or from any ruling.

Good luck with that.

 

[Skylar]

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?

Again, if they are "defending" gun rights, why don't I have mine back yet?

Still dodging aren't you

Backing off your claim that the Federal Government does not defend the second amendment?

I still don't see that defense by me, so its not a dodge, its looking for results, and not finding them.

Its being obtusely myopic. Like insisting that France doesn't exist because you're not in France and thus can't 'see' it. The Federal government has repeatedly defended the 2nd amendment. That you wish to ignore this fact doesn't change it. It merely defines the terms of your willful blindness.

 

[martybegan]

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.

You're demanding I adopt and defend an argument I've never made. And you've fled from any discussion of the arguments I have made. Or any that have been made in court. Or from any ruling.

Good luck with that.

it's a position taken by those who supported SSM as part of the argument made in the public square. I am asking your opinion of it, and you refuse to answer the question.

 

[martybegan]

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?

Again, if they are "defending" gun rights, why don't I have mine back yet?

Still dodging aren't you

Backing off your claim that the Federal Government does not defend the second amendment?

I still don't see that defense by me, so its not a dodge, its looking for results, and not finding them.

Its being obtusely myopic. Like insisting that France doesn't exist because you're not in France and thus can't 'see' it. The Federal government has repeatedly defended the 2nd amendment. That you wish to ignore this fact doesn't change it. It merely defines the terms of your willful blindness.

So why do I still have to wait 6 months and pay $1000 for a revolver?

What are the feds doing for me?

 

[Skylar]

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

Who is guilty of a dodge?

Again, if they are "defending" gun rights, why don't I have mine back yet?

Still dodging aren't you

Backing off your claim that the Federal Government does not defend the second amendment?

I still don't see that defense by me, so its not a dodge, its looking for results, and not finding them.

Its being obtusely myopic. Like insisting that France doesn't exist because you're not in France and thus can't 'see' it. The Federal government has repeatedly defended the 2nd amendment. That you wish to ignore this fact doesn't change it. It merely defines the terms of your willful blindness.

So why do I still have to wait 6 months and pay $1000 for a revolver?

What are the feds doing for me?

Why would we have to pretend that the federal government doesn't defend the 2nd amendment when it has, nationally and repeatedly?

You do realize that the 2nd amendment applies to more than just yourself, yes?

 

[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.

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.

You're demanding I adopt and defend an argument I've never made. And you've fled from any discussion of the arguments I have made. Or any that have been made in court. Or from any ruling.

Good luck with that.

it's a position taken by those who supported SSM as part of the argument made in the public square. I am asking your opinion of it, and you refuse to answer the question.

Its a position taken by some SSM supporters, among many, many others. And never in court. You're ignoring all their legal arguments, all the legal outcomes, all the court decisions, and any other position taken by SSM supporters.

If your argument had merit, you wouldn't have to.

 

[martybegan]

Again, if they are "defending" gun rights, why don't I have mine back yet?

Still dodging aren't you

Backing off your claim that the Federal Government does not defend the second amendment?

I still don't see that defense by me, so its not a dodge, its looking for results, and not finding them.

Its being obtusely myopic. Like insisting that France doesn't exist because you're not in France and thus can't 'see' it. The Federal government has repeatedly defended the 2nd amendment. That you wish to ignore this fact doesn't change it. It merely defines the terms of your willful blindness.

So why do I still have to wait 6 months and pay $1000 for a revolver?

What are the feds doing for me?

Why would we have to pretend that the federal government doesn't defend the 2nd amendment when it has, nationally and repeatedly?

You do realize that the 2nd amendment applies to more than just yourself, yes?

But it isn't applying to me right now in NYC, and that is the issue.

 

[martybegan]

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.

You're demanding I adopt and defend an argument I've never made. And you've fled from any discussion of the arguments I have made. Or any that have been made in court. Or from any ruling.

Good luck with that.

it's a position taken by those who supported SSM as part of the argument made in the public square. I am asking your opinion of it, and you refuse to answer the question.

Its a position taken by some SSM supporters, among many, many others. And never in court. You're ignoring all their legal arguments, all the legal outcomes, all the court decisions, and any other position taken by SSM supporters.

If your argument had merit, you wouldn't have to.

You still refuse to answer the question.

 

[Skylar]

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.

'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.

You're demanding I adopt and defend an argument I've never made. And you've fled from any discussion of the arguments I have made. Or any that have been made in court. Or from any ruling.

Good luck with that.

it's a position taken by those who supported SSM as part of the argument made in the public square. I am asking your opinion of it, and you refuse to answer the question.

Its a position taken by some SSM supporters, among many, many others. And never in court. You're ignoring all their legal arguments, all the legal outcomes, all the court decisions, and any other position taken by SSM supporters.

If your argument had merit, you wouldn't have to.

You still refuse to answer the question.

Its not my argument. If you believe that polygamy should be legal, make your case. You're demanding I make your case for you.

Laughing....no.

 

[Skylar]

Still dodging aren't you

Backing off your claim that the Federal Government does not defend the second amendment?

I still don't see that defense by me, so its not a dodge, its looking for results, and not finding them.

Its being obtusely myopic. Like insisting that France doesn't exist because you're not in France and thus can't 'see' it. The Federal government has repeatedly defended the 2nd amendment. That you wish to ignore this fact doesn't change it. It merely defines the terms of your willful blindness.

So why do I still have to wait 6 months and pay $1000 for a revolver?

What are the feds doing for me?

Why would we have to pretend that the federal government doesn't defend the 2nd amendment when it has, nationally and repeatedly?

You do realize that the 2nd amendment applies to more than just yourself, yes?

But it isn't applying to me right now in NYC, and that is the issue.

McDonald v. Chicago applies to NYC as well. That you refuse to acknowledge this fact doesn't change a thing. You're literally arguing your own willful ignorance.

 

[rightwinger]

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".

NY has a right to set the conditions for purchasing a gun. Why don't you get the NRA to take them to court?

They don't have the right to create de facto bans that have the sole purpose of discouraging ownership of firearms by law abiding citizens.

How about we add a 6 month wait and $1000 fee to abortions? Oh wait, that's a "right" you LIKE.

Totally different.

And the NRA will get around to it, the State level group has sued repeatedly and been told to go to hell by local progressive judges.

Conservatives have done the same thing with abortion clinics

 

[martybegan]

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

You're demanding I adopt and defend an argument I've never made. And you've fled from any discussion of the arguments I have made. Or any that have been made in court. Or from any ruling.

Good luck with that.

it's a position taken by those who supported SSM as part of the argument made in the public square. I am asking your opinion of it, and you refuse to answer the question.

Its a position taken by some SSM supporters, among many, many others. And never in court. You're ignoring all their legal arguments, all the legal outcomes, all the court decisions, and any other position taken by SSM supporters.

If your argument had merit, you wouldn't have to.

You still refuse to answer the question.

Its not my argument. If you believe that polygamy should be legal, make your case. You're demanding I make your case for you.

Laughing....no.

I am asking your opinion on plural marriage, when looked at from the view previously used by some SSM advocates, i.e. "love is love", and why it applies in the latter and not the former.

 

[martybegan]

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".

NY has a right to set the conditions for purchasing a gun. Why don't you get the NRA to take them to court?

They don't have the right to create de facto bans that have the sole purpose of discouraging ownership of firearms by law abiding citizens.

How about we add a 6 month wait and $1000 fee to abortions? Oh wait, that's a "right" you LIKE.

Totally different.

And the NRA will get around to it, the State level group has sued repeatedly and been told to go to hell by local progressive judges.

Conservatives have done the same thing with abortion clinics

Show me a 6 month wait and a $1000 government fee to get an abortion, anywhere.

Not having to drive X miles, or find a certain clinic, show me where the above is true.

 

[martybegan]

I still don't see that defense by me, so its not a dodge, its looking for results, and not finding them.

Its being obtusely myopic. Like insisting that France doesn't exist because you're not in France and thus can't 'see' it. The Federal government has repeatedly defended the 2nd amendment. That you wish to ignore this fact doesn't change it. It merely defines the terms of your willful blindness.

So why do I still have to wait 6 months and pay $1000 for a revolver?

What are the feds doing for me?

Why would we have to pretend that the federal government doesn't defend the 2nd amendment when it has, nationally and repeatedly?

You do realize that the 2nd amendment applies to more than just yourself, yes?

But it isn't applying to me right now in NYC, and that is the issue.

McDonald v. Chicago applies to NYC as well. That you refuse to acknowledge this fact doesn't change a thing. You're literally arguing your own willful ignorance.

Then why do I still have to wait 6 months and pay $1000 for a revolver?

Why isn't the DOJ suing the City of NY to change its laws?

 

[Skylar]

You're demanding I adopt and defend an argument I've never made. And you've fled from any discussion of the arguments I have made. Or any that have been made in court. Or from any ruling.

Good luck with that.

it's a position taken by those who supported SSM as part of the argument made in the public square. I am asking your opinion of it, and you refuse to answer the question.

Its a position taken by some SSM supporters, among many, many others. And never in court. You're ignoring all their legal arguments, all the legal outcomes, all the court decisions, and any other position taken by SSM supporters.

If your argument had merit, you wouldn't have to.

You still refuse to answer the question.

Its not my argument. If you believe that polygamy should be legal, make your case. You're demanding I make your case for you.

Laughing....no.

I am asking your opinion on plural marriage, when looked at from the view previously used by some SSM advocates, i.e. "love is love", and why it applies in the latter and not the former.

My personal opinion? It seems complicated. And our law doesn't seem set up to handle it. There are lots of issues that would arise under plural marriage that couldn't under our current arrangement. And we have no caselaw to govern how those situations will be resolved. It also seems a special burden for businesses trying to offer benefits.

As for 'love is love'. if you have an argument to make, make it. But 'love is love' isn't my argument. Nor do I care to take it up.