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

[Skylar]

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?

Why do you continue to pretend that the federal government doesn't defend the 2nd amendment?

 

[martybegan]

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.

My question is why does the "love is love" argument apply to SSM and not plural marriage. or does it?

 

[martybegan]

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?

Why do you continue to pretend that the federal government doesn't defend the 2nd amendment?

Because I have yet to see any federal officials spank NYC for their unconstitutional gun laws.

 

[Skylar]

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?

Why do you continue to pretend that the federal government doesn't defend the 2nd amendment?

Because I have yet to see any federal officials spank NYC for their unconstitutional gun laws.

So you didn't see the Heller or the McDonald Decision?

You do understand that the rest of us can, right?

 

[Skylar]

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.

My question is why does the "love is love" argument apply to SSM and not plural marriage. or does it?

If you have an argument to make about the 'love is love' schtick.....make it. But even you won't touch it with a 10 foot pole. Making your demand that I defend it all the more bizarre.

Especially since it has jack shit to do with any law, court case or legal outcome.

 

[martybegan]

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?

Why do you continue to pretend that the federal government doesn't defend the 2nd amendment?

Because I have yet to see any federal officials spank NYC for their unconstitutional gun laws.

So you didn't see the Heller or the McDonald Decision?

You do understand that the rest of us can, right?

So where are the federal agents enforcing said decisions and forcing NYC to give me a pistol permit without all the run around?

 

[martybegan]

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.

My question is why does the "love is love" argument apply to SSM and not plural marriage. or does it?

If you have an argument to make about the 'love is love' schtick.....make it. But even you won't touch it with a 10 foot pole. Making your demand that I defend it all the more bizarre.

Especially since it has jack shit to do with any law, court case or legal outcome.

You won't touch it because you know what the answer is. The answer is you can't separate the two, and all the "domino effect" arguments given by those who opposed SSM are now validated.

 

[Skylar]

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?

Why do you continue to pretend that the federal government doesn't defend the 2nd amendment?

Because I have yet to see any federal officials spank NYC for their unconstitutional gun laws.

So you didn't see the Heller or the McDonald Decision?

You do understand that the rest of us can, right?

So where are the federal agents enforcing said decisions and forcing NYC to give me a pistol permit without all the run around?

Where is your recognition of federal protection of 2nd amendment rights under Heller and McDonald?

Remember.....just because you pretend that neither ruling exist doesn't mean that *we* can't see them.

 

[Skylar]

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.

My question is why does the "love is love" argument apply to SSM and not plural marriage. or does it?

If you have an argument to make about the 'love is love' schtick.....make it. But even you won't touch it with a 10 foot pole. Making your demand that I defend it all the more bizarre.

Especially since it has jack shit to do with any law, court case or legal outcome.

You won't touch it because you know what the answer is. The answer is you can't separate the two, and all the "domino effect" arguments given by those who opposed SSM are now validated.

Its not my argument. And once again, even you won't touch it. If even you don't have a 'love is love' argument in favor of polygamy, why do you think I would?

 

[martybegan]

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?

Why do you continue to pretend that the federal government doesn't defend the 2nd amendment?

Because I have yet to see any federal officials spank NYC for their unconstitutional gun laws.

So you didn't see the Heller or the McDonald Decision?

You do understand that the rest of us can, right?

So where are the federal agents enforcing said decisions and forcing NYC to give me a pistol permit without all the run around?

Where is your recognition of federal protection of 2nd amendment rights under Heller and McDonald?

Remember.....just because you pretend that neither ruling exist doesn't mean that *we* can't see them.

Those are rulings by the courts, that just happen to be federal. The problem is the Courts have no executive authority. Similar to Stalin asking how many divisions does the Pope have, how may police officers does the SC have?

 

[martybegan]

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.

My question is why does the "love is love" argument apply to SSM and not plural marriage. or does it?

If you have an argument to make about the 'love is love' schtick.....make it. But even you won't touch it with a 10 foot pole. Making your demand that I defend it all the more bizarre.

Especially since it has jack shit to do with any law, court case or legal outcome.

You won't touch it because you know what the answer is. The answer is you can't separate the two, and all the "domino effect" arguments given by those who opposed SSM are now validated.

Its not my argument. And once again, even you won't touch it. If even you don't have a 'love is love' argument in favor of polygamy, why do you think I would?

I am critiquing the argument made by some SSM advocates, nothing more. To me it has to apply to plural marriage as long as all parties are OK with it.

 

[Skylar]

Why do you continue to pretend that the federal government doesn't defend the 2nd amendment?

Because I have yet to see any federal officials spank NYC for their unconstitutional gun laws.

So you didn't see the Heller or the McDonald Decision?

You do understand that the rest of us can, right?

So where are the federal agents enforcing said decisions and forcing NYC to give me a pistol permit without all the run around?

Where is your recognition of federal protection of 2nd amendment rights under Heller and McDonald?

Remember.....just because you pretend that neither ruling exist doesn't mean that *we* can't see them.

Those are rulings by the courts, that just happen to be federal.

As your laughably inaccurate argument was that the federal government don't defend the 2nd amendment, you just conceded the entire debate.

 

[Skylar]

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.

My question is why does the "love is love" argument apply to SSM and not plural marriage. or does it?

If you have an argument to make about the 'love is love' schtick.....make it. But even you won't touch it with a 10 foot pole. Making your demand that I defend it all the more bizarre.

Especially since it has jack shit to do with any law, court case or legal outcome.

You won't touch it because you know what the answer is. The answer is you can't separate the two, and all the "domino effect" arguments given by those who opposed SSM are now validated.

Its not my argument. And once again, even you won't touch it. If even you don't have a 'love is love' argument in favor of polygamy, why do you think I would?

I am critiquing the argument made by some SSM advocates, nothing more. To me it has to apply to plural marriage as long as all parties are OK with it.

Even you can't make your argument work. As when asked to make your *own* argument.......you refuse. And its your argument.

 

[martybegan]

Because I have yet to see any federal officials spank NYC for their unconstitutional gun laws.

So you didn't see the Heller or the McDonald Decision?

You do understand that the rest of us can, right?

So where are the federal agents enforcing said decisions and forcing NYC to give me a pistol permit without all the run around?

Where is your recognition of federal protection of 2nd amendment rights under Heller and McDonald?

Remember.....just because you pretend that neither ruling exist doesn't mean that *we* can't see them.

Those are rulings by the courts, that just happen to be federal.

As your laughably inaccurate argument was that the federal government don't defend the 2nd amendment, you just conceded the entire debate.

Again, if it did I could get a pistol for home ownership without paying $1000 and waiting 3-6 months.

The Courts make a ruling, and no one is enforcing it on NYC. The Feds aren't doing shit.

 

[martybegan]

My question is why does the "love is love" argument apply to SSM and not plural marriage. or does it?

If you have an argument to make about the 'love is love' schtick.....make it. But even you won't touch it with a 10 foot pole. Making your demand that I defend it all the more bizarre.

Especially since it has jack shit to do with any law, court case or legal outcome.

You won't touch it because you know what the answer is. The answer is you can't separate the two, and all the "domino effect" arguments given by those who opposed SSM are now validated.

Its not my argument. And once again, even you won't touch it. If even you don't have a 'love is love' argument in favor of polygamy, why do you think I would?

I am critiquing the argument made by some SSM advocates, nothing more. To me it has to apply to plural marriage as long as all parties are OK with it.

Even you can't make your argument work. As when asked to make your *own* argument.......you refuse. And its your argument.

it's not my argument, its my view on other's argument, and your inability or wanton refusal to admit to the crux of said argument.

 

[Skylar]

If you have an argument to make about the 'love is love' schtick.....make it. But even you won't touch it with a 10 foot pole. Making your demand that I defend it all the more bizarre.

Especially since it has jack shit to do with any law, court case or legal outcome.

You won't touch it because you know what the answer is. The answer is you can't separate the two, and all the "domino effect" arguments given by those who opposed SSM are now validated.

Its not my argument. And once again, even you won't touch it. If even you don't have a 'love is love' argument in favor of polygamy, why do you think I would?

I am critiquing the argument made by some SSM advocates, nothing more. To me it has to apply to plural marriage as long as all parties are OK with it.

Even you can't make your argument work. As when asked to make your *own* argument.......you refuse. And its your argument.

it's not my argument, its my view on other's argument, and your inability or wanton refusal to admit to the crux of said argument.

You're the one forwarding it, you're the one demanding it be defended. Yet when I ask you to make your *own* argument regarding 'love is love' and polygamy......even you can't polish that turd.

You have nothing but excuses.

 

[Skylar]

So you didn't see the Heller or the McDonald Decision?

You do understand that the rest of us can, right?

So where are the federal agents enforcing said decisions and forcing NYC to give me a pistol permit without all the run around?

Where is your recognition of federal protection of 2nd amendment rights under Heller and McDonald?

Remember.....just because you pretend that neither ruling exist doesn't mean that *we* can't see them.

Those are rulings by the courts, that just happen to be federal.

As your laughably inaccurate argument was that the federal government don't defend the 2nd amendment, you just conceded the entire debate.

Again, if it did I could get a pistol for home ownership without paying $1000 and waiting 3-6 months.

The Courts make a ruling, and no one is enforcing it on NYC. The Feds aren't doing shit.

Again, pretending that the Heller and McDonald decisions don't exist doesn't magically make them disappear. You only blind yourself when you close your eyes.

We can still see them.

 

[martybegan]

You won't touch it because you know what the answer is. The answer is you can't separate the two, and all the "domino effect" arguments given by those who opposed SSM are now validated.

Its not my argument. And once again, even you won't touch it. If even you don't have a 'love is love' argument in favor of polygamy, why do you think I would?

I am critiquing the argument made by some SSM advocates, nothing more. To me it has to apply to plural marriage as long as all parties are OK with it.

Even you can't make your argument work. As when asked to make your *own* argument.......you refuse. And its your argument.

it's not my argument, its my view on other's argument, and your inability or wanton refusal to admit to the crux of said argument.

You're the one forwarding it, you're the one demanding it be defended. Yet when I ask you to make your *own* argument regarding 'love is love' and polygamy......even you can't polish that turd.

You have nothing but excuses.

And you have nothing but dodges and retreating to authority appeals.

 

[martybegan]

So where are the federal agents enforcing said decisions and forcing NYC to give me a pistol permit without all the run around?

Where is your recognition of federal protection of 2nd amendment rights under Heller and McDonald?

Remember.....just because you pretend that neither ruling exist doesn't mean that *we* can't see them.

Those are rulings by the courts, that just happen to be federal.

As your laughably inaccurate argument was that the federal government don't defend the 2nd amendment, you just conceded the entire debate.

Again, if it did I could get a pistol for home ownership without paying $1000 and waiting 3-6 months.

The Courts make a ruling, and no one is enforcing it on NYC. The Feds aren't doing shit.

Again, pretending that the Heller and McDonald decisions don't exist doesn't magically make them disappear. You only blind yourself when you close your eyes.

We can still see them.

They don't exist in NYC, and that's what matters to me.

 

[Skylar]

Where is your recognition of federal protection of 2nd amendment rights under Heller and McDonald?

Remember.....just because you pretend that neither ruling exist doesn't mean that *we* can't see them.

Those are rulings by the courts, that just happen to be federal.

As your laughably inaccurate argument was that the federal government don't defend the 2nd amendment, you just conceded the entire debate.

Again, if it did I could get a pistol for home ownership without paying $1000 and waiting 3-6 months.

The Courts make a ruling, and no one is enforcing it on NYC. The Feds aren't doing shit.

Again, pretending that the Heller and McDonald decisions don't exist doesn't magically make them disappear. You only blind yourself when you close your eyes.

We can still see them.

They don't exist in NYC, and that's what matters to me.

Heller and McDonald do exist in NYC. And you ignore them. And of course the 2nd amendment applies to far more than just you.