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

[martybegan]

it's not defending MY 2nd amendment rights, and that is the whole desired result of the exercise isn't it?

So neither Heller nor McDonald apply to you? Can you show us the cases explicitly exempting you?

Can I get a Hand gun without $1000, 3-6 month wait, and permission of NYPD?

Does Heller and McDonald apply to NY?

Kind of like how the Ideal Gas Law applies to actual gaseous system interactions.

Or, more accurately, how supreme court rulings apply to the entire country. Heller resolved the issue federally. McDonald with the States.

Do you deny any of this?

On paper they do it, but it hasn't been applied in reality. DC keeps getting in trouble because they try to enforce the ban de facto instead of de jure.


NY doesn't have a de jure ban either, but a de facto one. So Heller and McDonald dont do me any good.

 

[Skylar]

So neither Heller nor McDonald apply to you? Can you show us the cases explicitly exempting you?

Can I get a Hand gun without $1000, 3-6 month wait, and permission of NYPD?

Does Heller and McDonald apply to NY?

Kind of like how the Ideal Gas Law applies to actual gaseous system interactions.

Or, more accurately, how supreme court rulings apply to the entire country. Heller resolved the issue federally. McDonald with the States.

Do you deny any of this?

On paper they do it, but it hasn't been applied in reality. DC keeps getting in trouble because they try to enforce the ban de facto instead of de jure.

So you recognize that the Federal Government has defended the 2nd amendment?

 

[Skylar]

Used...where? Certainly not in court. And if the same argument 'can be used', then use it.

Make your 'love is love' argument in support of polygamy. Tell us why it should be legal.

Stop running to the "legal" argument, I'm not discussing that. Stop being so obtuse.

You're not discussing anything, as you won't make you 'love is love' argument for polygamy either.

No one is. Shit or get off the pot. But if even you can't make your argument work, why are you demanding we polish that turd?

I am asking you to take a position, and you refuse to.

You're asking me to take a position that even *you* can't defend. Why would I?

Because that's the whole point of these past 5 pages of me asking you to do it.

The whole point is that the 'love is love' argument doesn't apply to polygamy?

 

[martybegan]

Can I get a Hand gun without $1000, 3-6 month wait, and permission of NYPD?

Does Heller and McDonald apply to NY?

Kind of like how the Ideal Gas Law applies to actual gaseous system interactions.

Or, more accurately, how supreme court rulings apply to the entire country. Heller resolved the issue federally. McDonald with the States.

Do you deny any of this?

On paper they do it, but it hasn't been applied in reality. DC keeps getting in trouble because they try to enforce the ban de facto instead of de jure.

So you recognize that the Federal Government has defended the 2nd amendment?

On paper yes, in reality, no. Again, where is the DOJ and why aren't they forcing NYC to change their gun laws?

 

[martybegan]

Stop running to the "legal" argument, I'm not discussing that. Stop being so obtuse.

You're not discussing anything, as you won't make you 'love is love' argument for polygamy either.

No one is. Shit or get off the pot. But if even you can't make your argument work, why are you demanding we polish that turd?

I am asking you to take a position, and you refuse to.

You're asking me to take a position that even *you* can't defend. Why would I?

Because that's the whole point of these past 5 pages of me asking you to do it.

The whole point is that the 'love is love' argument doesn't apply to polygamy?

Why not?

 

[Skylar]

You're not discussing anything, as you won't make you 'love is love' argument for polygamy either.

No one is. Shit or get off the pot. But if even you can't make your argument work, why are you demanding we polish that turd?

I am asking you to take a position, and you refuse to.

You're asking me to take a position that even *you* can't defend. Why would I?

Because that's the whole point of these past 5 pages of me asking you to do it.

The whole point is that the 'love is love' argument doesn't apply to polygamy?

Why not?

Its your point. You tell us.

 

[Skylar]

Does Heller and McDonald apply to NY?

Kind of like how the Ideal Gas Law applies to actual gaseous system interactions.

Or, more accurately, how supreme court rulings apply to the entire country. Heller resolved the issue federally. McDonald with the States.

Do you deny any of this?

On paper they do it, but it hasn't been applied in reality. DC keeps getting in trouble because they try to enforce the ban de facto instead of de jure.

So you recognize that the Federal Government has defended the 2nd amendment?

On paper yes, in reality, no. Again, where is the DOJ and why aren't they forcing NYC to change their gun laws?

So the Heller decision doesn't apply to anyone?

Or are you being heroically myopic?

 

[martybegan]

I am asking you to take a position, and you refuse to.

You're asking me to take a position that even *you* can't defend. Why would I?

Because that's the whole point of these past 5 pages of me asking you to do it.

The whole point is that the 'love is love' argument doesn't apply to polygamy?

Why not?

Its your point. You tell us.

It's not my point, it's the eventual point that will be made by plural marriage advocates (stop calling it polygamy, that is just a more specific version of a plural marriage).

My question is, if they do start using it, why would they be wrong, but the SSM supporters who used it be right?

 

[martybegan]

Kind of like how the Ideal Gas Law applies to actual gaseous system interactions.

Or, more accurately, how supreme court rulings apply to the entire country. Heller resolved the issue federally. McDonald with the States.

Do you deny any of this?

On paper they do it, but it hasn't been applied in reality. DC keeps getting in trouble because they try to enforce the ban de facto instead of de jure.

So you recognize that the Federal Government has defended the 2nd amendment?

On paper yes, in reality, no. Again, where is the DOJ and why aren't they forcing NYC to change their gun laws?

So the Heller decision doesn't apply to anyone?

Or are you being heroically myopic?

Is it applying to me? Has someone gone and turned over NYC's restrictive gun laws?

 

[Skylar]

Or, more accurately, how supreme court rulings apply to the entire country. Heller resolved the issue federally. McDonald with the States.

Do you deny any of this?

On paper they do it, but it hasn't been applied in reality. DC keeps getting in trouble because they try to enforce the ban de facto instead of de jure.

So you recognize that the Federal Government has defended the 2nd amendment?

On paper yes, in reality, no. Again, where is the DOJ and why aren't they forcing NYC to change their gun laws?

So the Heller decision doesn't apply to anyone?

Or are you being heroically myopic?

Is it applying to me? Has someone gone and turned over NYC's restrictive gun laws?

Are you the only person the 2nd amendment applies to?

 

[Skylar]

You're asking me to take a position that even *you* can't defend. Why would I?

Because that's the whole point of these past 5 pages of me asking you to do it.

The whole point is that the 'love is love' argument doesn't apply to polygamy?

Why not?

Its your point. You tell us.

It's not my point, it's the eventual point that will be made by plural marriage advocates (stop calling it polygamy, that is just a more specific version of a plural marriage).

And if 'that point' is made by advocates of polygamy? What then?

 

[martybegan]

On paper they do it, but it hasn't been applied in reality. DC keeps getting in trouble because they try to enforce the ban de facto instead of de jure.

So you recognize that the Federal Government has defended the 2nd amendment?

On paper yes, in reality, no. Again, where is the DOJ and why aren't they forcing NYC to change their gun laws?

So the Heller decision doesn't apply to anyone?

Or are you being heroically myopic?

Is it applying to me? Has someone gone and turned over NYC's restrictive gun laws?

Are you the only person the 2nd amendment applies to?

No, but in NYC it isn't doing me any good right now.

 

[martybegan]

Because that's the whole point of these past 5 pages of me asking you to do it.

The whole point is that the 'love is love' argument doesn't apply to polygamy?

Why not?

Its your point. You tell us.

It's not my point, it's the eventual point that will be made by plural marriage advocates (stop calling it polygamy, that is just a more specific version of a plural marriage).

And if 'that point' is made by advocates of polygamy? What then?

It depends on if you accept the love is love argument for SSM. At that point, what logic would you use to deny the same point for plural marriage?

 

[Skylar]

So you recognize that the Federal Government has defended the 2nd amendment?

On paper yes, in reality, no. Again, where is the DOJ and why aren't they forcing NYC to change their gun laws?

So the Heller decision doesn't apply to anyone?

Or are you being heroically myopic?

Is it applying to me? Has someone gone and turned over NYC's restrictive gun laws?

Are you the only person the 2nd amendment applies to?

No, but in NYC it isn't doing me any good right now.

Then if you're not the only one the 2nd amendment applies to, how can you possibly argue that the 2nd amendment isn't defended by the Federal Government?

 

[Skylar]

The whole point is that the 'love is love' argument doesn't apply to polygamy?

Why not?

Its your point. You tell us.

It's not my point, it's the eventual point that will be made by plural marriage advocates (stop calling it polygamy, that is just a more specific version of a plural marriage).

And if 'that point' is made by advocates of polygamy? What then?

It depends on if you accept the love is love argument for SSM. At that point, what logic would you use to deny the same point for plural marriage?

How does my 'acceptance' change the outcome of 'that argument' if offered by supporters of polygamy.

I really don't think I'm that important.

 

[martybegan]

On paper yes, in reality, no. Again, where is the DOJ and why aren't they forcing NYC to change their gun laws?

So the Heller decision doesn't apply to anyone?

Or are you being heroically myopic?

Is it applying to me? Has someone gone and turned over NYC's restrictive gun laws?

Are you the only person the 2nd amendment applies to?

No, but in NYC it isn't doing me any good right now.

Then if you're not the only one the 2nd amendment applies to, how can you possibly argue that the 2nd amendment isn't defended by the Federal Government?

Again, where are those federal agents stripping away NYC's oppressive gun laws?

 

[martybegan]

Why not?

Its your point. You tell us.

It's not my point, it's the eventual point that will be made by plural marriage advocates (stop calling it polygamy, that is just a more specific version of a plural marriage).

And if 'that point' is made by advocates of polygamy? What then?

It depends on if you accept the love is love argument for SSM. At that point, what logic would you use to deny the same point for plural marriage?

How does my 'acceptance' change the outcome of 'that argument' if offered by supporters of polygamy.

I really don't think I'm that important.

Then just answer the question.

 

[Skylar]

So the Heller decision doesn't apply to anyone?

Or are you being heroically myopic?

Is it applying to me? Has someone gone and turned over NYC's restrictive gun laws?

Are you the only person the 2nd amendment applies to?

No, but in NYC it isn't doing me any good right now.

Then if you're not the only one the 2nd amendment applies to, how can you possibly argue that the 2nd amendment isn't defended by the Federal Government?

Again, where are those federal agents stripping away NYC's oppressive gun laws?

Again, if the 2nd amendment extends to more than just you, why would you assume the federal government doesn't protect the 2nd amendment?

You....you do realize that the rest of us exist when out of your eye sight, right? That the world doesn't disapear when you fall asleep?

 

[Skylar]

Its your point. You tell us.

It's not my point, it's the eventual point that will be made by plural marriage advocates (stop calling it polygamy, that is just a more specific version of a plural marriage).

And if 'that point' is made by advocates of polygamy? What then?

It depends on if you accept the love is love argument for SSM. At that point, what logic would you use to deny the same point for plural marriage?

How does my 'acceptance' change the outcome of 'that argument' if offered by supporters of polygamy.

I really don't think I'm that important.

Then just answer the question.

You go first. Make your argument in favor polygamy using the 'love is love' argument.

If even you're not willing to polish that rhetorical turd, why would you expect me to?