Please, my fellow Conservatives, let's just stop...

[PredFan]

And how does Polygamy affect you personally?

How does my ability to own a semi automatic handgun affect you personally.

It can end up in the hands of someone unqualified to handle it and harm me.

Your turn to answer.

Not a valid argument. You are adding a "what if" part to the argument.

 

[RDD_1210]

How does my ability to own a semi automatic handgun affect you personally.

It can end up in the hands of someone unqualified to handle it and harm me.

Your turn to answer.

So because of the off chance that someone else may get my gun, I cant have one?

Nice try, but weak.

Who said you can't have one? Nice strawman...actually not really. You lose since that's not what's being sought after. Weak.

And polygamy doesnt affect me personally, until I, say as a business owner, do not want to have anything to do with a polygamous marriage. once its recognized as a right all those anti-discrimination laws can basically force me to deal with them.

So the marriage doesnt affect me, what affects me is the people who feel like suing because they are slighted.

Oh, another strawman. Why kind of shitty business do you run (hypothetically of course) since I'm sure you don't actually run any business that you would turn away paying customers who happen to have more than one spouse? Please let me hear this real world scenario. This should be good.

 

[RDD_1210]

How does my ability to own a semi automatic handgun affect you personally.

It can end up in the hands of someone unqualified to handle it and harm me.

Your turn to answer.

Na
ot a valid argument. You are adding a "what if" part to the argument.

Of course it's a valid argument. Guns should not be allowed to be in the hands of people who are not capable of handling them, agree or disagree?

 

[martybegan]

It can end up in the hands of someone unqualified to handle it and harm me.

Your turn to answer.

So because of the off chance that someone else may get my gun, I cant have one?

Nice try, but weak.

Who said you can't have one? Nice strawman...actually not really. You lose since that's not what's being sought after. Weak.

And polygamy doesnt affect me personally, until I, say as a business owner, do not want to have anything to do with a polygamous marriage. once its recognized as a right all those anti-discrimination laws can basically force me to deal with them.

So the marriage doesnt affect me, what affects me is the people who feel like suing because they are slighted.

Oh, another strawman. Why kind of shitty business do you run (hypothetically of course) since I'm sure you don't actually run any business that you would turn away paying customers who happen to have more than one spouse? Please let me hear this real world scenario. This should be good.

Not for polygamy, but for gay marriage.

You lose.

Washington State Sues Florist Who Refused Flowers for Same-Sex Wedding - US News and World Report

Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson announced Tuesday a lawsuit against an eastern Washington florist who refused to provide flowers for a same-sex marriage ceremony. Some conservative and libertarian supporters of same-sex marriage say it's a bad move.


According to a press release from Ferguson's office, Barronelle Stutzman, the owner of Arlene's Flowers, violated the state's Consumer Protection Act in March when she informed a longtime client she would not provide flowers for his ceremony.

"As Attorney General, it is my job to enforce the laws of the state of Washington," Ferguson said in a released statement. "Under the Consumer Protection Act, it is unlawful to discriminate against customers on the basis of sexual orientation. If a business provides a product or service to opposite-sex couples for their weddings, then it must provide same-sex couples the same product or service."

 

[RDD_1210]

So because of the off chance that someone else may get my gun, I cant have one?

Nice try, but weak.

Who said you can't have one? Nice strawman...actually not really. You lose since that's not what's being sought after. Weak.



Oh, another strawman. Why kind of shitty business do you run (hypothetically of course) since I'm sure you don't actually run any business that you would turn away paying customers who happen to have more than one spouse? Please let me hear this real world scenario. This should be good.

Not for polygamy, but for gay marriage.

You lose.

Washington State Sues Florist Who Refused Flowers for Same-Sex Wedding - US News and World Report

Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson announced Tuesday a lawsuit against an eastern Washington florist who refused to provide flowers for a same-sex marriage ceremony. Some conservative and libertarian supporters of same-sex marriage say it's a bad move.


According to a press release from Ferguson's office, Barronelle Stutzman, the owner of Arlene's Flowers, violated the state's Consumer Protection Act in March when she informed a longtime client she would not provide flowers for his ceremony.

"As Attorney General, it is my job to enforce the laws of the state of Washington," Ferguson said in a released statement. "Under the Consumer Protection Act, it is unlawful to discriminate against customers on the basis of sexual orientation. If a business provides a product or service to opposite-sex couples for their weddings, then it must provide same-sex couples the same product or service."

See and I thought we were talking about Polygamy. Can you people ever stick try and stay on topic. So your polygamy scenario was ridiculous then. Got it.

Are we officially moving back to the topic of Gay marriage. Let me know before you switch to something else.

 

[martybegan]

Who said you can't have one? Nice strawman...actually not really. You lose since that's not what's being sought after. Weak.



Oh, another strawman. Why kind of shitty business do you run (hypothetically of course) since I'm sure you don't actually run any business that you would turn away paying customers who happen to have more than one spouse? Please let me hear this real world scenario. This should be good.

Not for polygamy, but for gay marriage.

You lose.

Washington State Sues Florist Who Refused Flowers for Same-Sex Wedding - US News and World Report

Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson announced Tuesday a lawsuit against an eastern Washington florist who refused to provide flowers for a same-sex marriage ceremony. Some conservative and libertarian supporters of same-sex marriage say it's a bad move.


According to a press release from Ferguson's office, Barronelle Stutzman, the owner of Arlene's Flowers, violated the state's Consumer Protection Act in March when she informed a longtime client she would not provide flowers for his ceremony.

"As Attorney General, it is my job to enforce the laws of the state of Washington," Ferguson said in a released statement. "Under the Consumer Protection Act, it is unlawful to discriminate against customers on the basis of sexual orientation. If a business provides a product or service to opposite-sex couples for their weddings, then it must provide same-sex couples the same product or service."

See and I thought we were talking about Polygamy. Can you people ever stick try and stay on topic. So your polygamy scenario was ridiculous then. Got it.

Are we officially moving back to the topic of Gay marriage. Let me know before you switch to something else.

polygamy isnt legal yet. if it were to become legal, the same as above would be sure to happen.

I understand you have the mental capacity of a lemming, but having to walk you through this is a bit annoying.

 

[Ravi]

Not for polygamy, but for gay marriage.

You lose.

Washington State Sues Florist Who Refused Flowers for Same-Sex Wedding - US News and World Report

See and I thought we were talking about Polygamy. Can you people ever stick try and stay on topic. So your polygamy scenario was ridiculous then. Got it.

Are we officially moving back to the topic of Gay marriage. Let me know before you switch to something else.

polygamy isnt legal yet. if it were to become legal, the same as above would be sure to happen.

I understand you have the mental capacity of a lemming, but having to walk you through this is a bit annoying.

Outlawing something because someone might be offended and sue is a good reason to outlaw something?

 

[martybegan]

See and I thought we were talking about Polygamy. Can you people ever stick try and stay on topic. So your polygamy scenario was ridiculous then. Got it.

Are we officially moving back to the topic of Gay marriage. Let me know before you switch to something else.

polygamy isnt legal yet. if it were to become legal, the same as above would be sure to happen.

I understand you have the mental capacity of a lemming, but having to walk you through this is a bit annoying.

Outlawing something because someone might be offended and sue is a good reason to outlaw something?

No its a good reason to get rid of private anti-discrimination laws. Let the government be neutral and let citizens be as much of a bunch of assholes as they want to be.

 

[dilloduck]

See and I thought we were talking about Polygamy. Can you people ever stick try and stay on topic. So your polygamy scenario was ridiculous then. Got it.

Are we officially moving back to the topic of Gay marriage. Let me know before you switch to something else.

polygamy isnt legal yet. if it were to become legal, the same as above would be sure to happen.

I understand you have the mental capacity of a lemming, but having to walk you through this is a bit annoying.

Outlawing something because someone might be offended and sue is a good reason to outlaw something?

ya---sorta like hate speech.

 

[RDD_1210]

Not for polygamy, but for gay marriage.

You lose.

Washington State Sues Florist Who Refused Flowers for Same-Sex Wedding - US News and World Report

See and I thought we were talking about Polygamy. Can you people ever stick try and stay on topic. So your polygamy scenario was ridiculous then. Got it.

Are we officially moving back to the topic of Gay marriage. Let me know before you switch to something else.

polygamy isnt legal yet. if it were to become legal, the same as above would be sure to happen.

I understand you have the mental capacity of a lemming, but having to walk you through this is a bit annoying.

Listen, I'm sorry your life has turned out as shitty as it has. I mean I know the daily lives of homosexuals has ruined your very existence and if it weren't for those "fags" you'd be living the perfect life. Maybe if you cry about it more everything will magically get better for you.

You can justify wanting to be an asshole towards people simply because of who they choose to love but that's your problem to deal with, not the rest of the 21st century and civilized society.

 

[buckeye45_73]

...this silly argument that the SCOTUS has opened the door for Pedophiles to marry children.

You have rights so far as those rights don't harm or infringe upon the rights of others. Pedophilia harms children and therefor cannot ever be legal.

well, some liberals do want to "change" the age of consent.....

 

[Avorysuds]

...this silly argument that the SCOTUS has opened the door for Pedophiles to marry children.

You have rights so far as those rights don't harm or infringe upon the rights of others. Pedophilia harms children and therefor cannot ever be legal.

Where is may open up the door to is defintely plural marriage (polygamy is only between 1 man and multiple women, lets get the vocabulary right) and possibly consensual incest.

On all the other stuff, yes I agree it is hokum.

Even on polygamy.... who the fuck cares? I mean really, best anyone's got is jealousy.

 

[Avorysuds]

Ive never made an argument concerning pedophiles. My argument stops at polygamy. There is no logical reason not to legalize polygamy that hasnt already been shot down and ignored by those promoting same sex marriage.

Pedophiles are another group altogether.

Here is the best argument ever...

THERE IS NO REASON TO MAKE POLYGAMY ILLEGAL.

Government should have no power in regards to marriage other than enforcing the contract that the people sign their names on... unless they don't sign a contract and instead simply call themselves married.

 

[buckeye45_73]

...this silly argument that the SCOTUS has opened the door for Pedophiles to marry children.

You have rights so far as those rights don't harm or infringe upon the rights of others. Pedophilia harms children and therefor cannot ever be legal.

and yeah, the gays advocate it, look at this stuff

Partners Task Force - Age of Consent

 

[Katzndogz]

What's a child? A child is someone below an arbitrarily chosen age. In some places for purposes of sex, a 12 year old is an adult. In the United States, a menstruating female that has the ability to conceive is an adult for some purposes no matter what her chronological age is. If an 11 year old girl is an adult for purposes of buying contraception is she not adult enough to have sex? Yet, we plainly believe that a girl of any age whatsoever able to buy contraception, Plan B, without any question. Especially questions as to her rapist might be, because there is no rapist.

If anything, we are far, far closer to legalizing pedophilia than we are even to legalizing polygamy. Just lower the age of consent.

 

[PredFan]

It can end up in the hands of someone unqualified to handle it and harm me.

Your turn to answer.

Na
ot a valid argument. You are adding a "what if" part to the argument.

Of course it's a valid argument. Guns should not be allowed to be in the hands of people who are not capable of handling them, agree or disagree?

Doesn't matter, it's irrelevant. You cannot logically add the "what if" to your point and make it a valid counterpoint to his point.

 

[PredFan]

...this silly argument that the SCOTUS has opened the door for Pedophiles to marry children.

You have rights so far as those rights don't harm or infringe upon the rights of others. Pedophilia harms children and therefor cannot ever be legal.

well, some liberals do want to "change" the age of consent.....

And so do some conservatives. However, the majority of both parties do not.

Irregardless, it isn't the same as gay marriage. As long as it's between consenting adults, the government should butt out.

 

[Edgetho]

The prophet muhammed's favorite wife, Aisha, was only 9 years old when he started banging the shit out of her.

To this day, there is no observable age of consent in most muslim countries.

If a man wants to screw a 10 or 11 year old girl, she better keep her mouth shut after he does or she'll be whipped or even executed for being immoral.

And THESE are the dimocraps friends.

And BTW, didja know that muslim countries lead the world in downloading gay butt-sex porno? Fact.

No wonder dimocraps love 'em so much.

both of them are scum of the Earth

 

[Ravi]

The prophet muhammed's favorite wife, Aisha, was only 9 years old when he started banging the shit out of her.

To this day, there is no observable age of consent in most muslim countries.

If a man wants to screw a 10 or 11 year old girl, she better keep her mouth shut after he does or she'll be whipped or even executed for being immoral.

And THESE are the dimocraps friends.

And BTW, didja know that muslim countries lead the world in downloading gay butt-sex porno? Fact.

No wonder dimocraps love 'em so much.

both of them are scum of the Earth

Shouldn't your screen name be IdgitHo?

 

[RDD_1210]

Na
ot a valid argument. You are adding a "what if" part to the argument.

Of course it's a valid argument. Guns should not be allowed to be in the hands of people who are not capable of handling them, agree or disagree?

Doesn't matter, it's irrelevant. You cannot logically add the "what if" to your point, and make it a valid counterpoint to his point.

I actually never said "what if" so are you done with your ridiculousness? Of course it matters, that's the whole point. Preventing guns from getting in to the wrong hands. Let me know when you're ready to discuss like a big boy.