Polygamy Attorney On Gay Marriage Decision: SCOTUS Opinion ‘Resonates With Our Arguments’

[dilloduck]

What is foolish about people who are in love with each other being allowed to get "married" ?

Don't put words in my mouth, idiot.

So you have no problem with several people getting married to each other. Good for you.

What did I say about putting words in my mouth?

Sorry----I keep thinking that you might be able to come up with a legal reason that polygamy should be illegal . Silly me.

Here's one: Tying up our court system.

lets say that Bill, Jack, Bob, and Jim marry Mary, Liz, Kenisha, and Joan. They have 8 kids, 9 cars, two boats, a large house, 401K accounts in each name with all the others as beneficiaries.

Now, Bill and Mary decide to divorce the rest of them. How many lawyers will be used, how much court time, how many paternity tests, how many custody agreements?

Then a year later, Kenisha decides that she is gay and wants to leave the marriage to move in with Lois who is married to 5 other women.

I know that sounds ridiculous, but it could be our future.

hey----equal rights are important---no matter how long it takes

 

[ChrisL]

I really don't care at all. If two or four or six people want to marry each other, why should I care? I don't get why people care SO much about these kinds of things...

One word, "children"...

What about them?

 

[ChrisL]

I really don't care at all. If two or four or six people want to marry each other, why should I care? I don't get why people care SO much about these kinds of things...

One word, "children"...

You only care about children until they can't help you harm gays. If they don't, you discard them into the trash. You're not fooling anybody but yourself.

Some don't seem to give a rat's butt about children of poor people, whether they get proper health care, have enough to eat, have good schools or have a chance at higher education.

 

[nat4900]

It's interesting that two people of the same gender should be allowed to marry....but many who support that find polygamy repulsive.

Why is that ?

Stupid argument based on your equally moronic conclusion.....

Polygamy in the 19th century was found "illegal" in the US because, basically it ENSLAVED women based on a religious doctrine. Whereas, there was never a decision against gay marriages

 

[mudwhistle]

What is foolish about people who are in love with each other being allowed to get "married" ?

Don't put words in my mouth, idiot.

So you have no problem with several people getting married to each other. Good for you.

What did I say about putting words in my mouth?

Sorry----I keep thinking that you might be able to come up with a legal reason that polygamy should be illegal . Silly me.

Here's one: Tying up our court system.

lets say that Bill, Jack, Bob, and Jim marry Mary, Liz, Kenisha, and Joan. They have 8 kids, 9 cars, two boats, a large house, 401K accounts in each name with all the others as beneficiaries.

Now, Bill and Mary decide to divorce the rest of them. How many lawyers will be used, how much court time, how many paternity tests, how many custody agreements?

Then a year later, Kenisha decides that she is gay and wants to leave the marriage to move in with Lois who is married to 5 other women.

I know that sounds ridiculous, but it could be our future.

A future that is a certainty because Gays decided that they wanted to be married like everyone else......never mind the fact that it was mentioned years ago that everyone, not just gays, would be demanding equal marriage rights.

I don't think it's right to prevent anyone from getting married that wants to......but then again.....there are some pretty strange possibilities in the works.

Saying that only gays deserve this right is wrong. The only reason plural marriages aren't the norm in America is because of Pilgramistic morals established by the Christian right. Now they and the left are aligned in preventing polygamists exercising their civil rights under this Supreme Court decision.

 

[mudwhistle]

It's interesting that two people of the same gender should be allowed to marry....but many who support that find polygamy repulsive.

Why is that ?

Stupid argument based on your equally moronic conclusion.....

Polygamy in the 19th century was found "illegal" in the US because, basically it ENSLAVED women based on a religious doctrine. Whereas, there was never a decision against gay marriages

Well only because nobody every tried it before.

Now precedent has been established and your Puritan beliefs have been flushed down the tubes Bud.

 

[bripat9643]

"Polygamy Attorney On Gay Marriage Decision: SCOTUS Opinion ‘Resonates With Our Arguments’"

Turley has long been discredited concerning this false comparison fallacy, he's been whining about this nonsense since Lawrence.

Obergefell has no bearing whatsoever on 'polygamy,' unlike same-sex couples, three or more persons are not eligible to enter into marriage contracts; indeed, there are no civil rights 'violations' because one can't be 'discriminated' against concerning being denied access to a law that doesn't exist.

Gay marriage didn't exist under the law a few years ago, dumbass. The Supreme court just provided the language justifying polygamy.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"Polygamy Attorney On Gay Marriage Decision: SCOTUS Opinion ‘Resonates With Our Arguments’"

Turley has long been discredited concerning this false comparison fallacy, he's been whining about this nonsense since Lawrence.

Obergefell has no bearing whatsoever on 'polygamy,' unlike same-sex couples, three or more persons are not eligible to enter into marriage contracts; indeed, there are no civil rights 'violations' because one can't be 'discriminated' against concerning being denied access to a law that doesn't exist.

Gay marriage didn't exist under the law a few years ago, dumbass. The Supreme court just provided the language justifying polygamy.

Polygamy is a religious practice, isn't it?

 

[NYcarbineer]

What is foolish about people who are in love with each other being allowed to get "married" ?

Don't put words in my mouth, idiot.

So you have no problem with several people getting married to each other. Good for you.

What did I say about putting words in my mouth?

Sorry----I keep thinking that you might be able to come up with a legal reason that polygamy should be illegal . Silly me.

Here's one: Tying up our court system.

lets say that Bill, Jack, Bob, and Jim marry Mary, Liz, Kenisha, and Joan. They have 8 kids, 9 cars, two boats, a large house, 401K accounts in each name with all the others as beneficiaries.

Now, Bill and Mary decide to divorce the rest of them. How many lawyers will be used, how much court time, how many paternity tests, how many custody agreements?

Then a year later, Kenisha decides that she is gay and wants to leave the marriage to move in with Lois who is married to 5 other women.

I know that sounds ridiculous, but it could be our future.

So it doesn't matter to you if a religion believes that their God sanctions polygamy?

 

[dilloduck]

Don't put words in my mouth, idiot.

So you have no problem with several people getting married to each other. Good for you.

What did I say about putting words in my mouth?

Sorry----I keep thinking that you might be able to come up with a legal reason that polygamy should be illegal . Silly me.

Here's one: Tying up our court system.

lets say that Bill, Jack, Bob, and Jim marry Mary, Liz, Kenisha, and Joan. They have 8 kids, 9 cars, two boats, a large house, 401K accounts in each name with all the others as beneficiaries.

Now, Bill and Mary decide to divorce the rest of them. How many lawyers will be used, how much court time, how many paternity tests, how many custody agreements?

Then a year later, Kenisha decides that she is gay and wants to leave the marriage to move in with Lois who is married to 5 other women.

I know that sounds ridiculous, but it could be our future.

So it doesn't matter to you if a religion believes that their God sanctions polygamy?

what's your plan ? Getting religions to sanction what is acceptable to you ?

 

[dilloduck]

"Polygamy Attorney On Gay Marriage Decision: SCOTUS Opinion ‘Resonates With Our Arguments’"

Turley has long been discredited concerning this false comparison fallacy, he's been whining about this nonsense since Lawrence.

Obergefell has no bearing whatsoever on 'polygamy,' unlike same-sex couples, three or more persons are not eligible to enter into marriage contracts; indeed, there are no civil rights 'violations' because one can't be 'discriminated' against concerning being denied access to a law that doesn't exist.

Gay marriage didn't exist under the law a few years ago, dumbass. The Supreme court just provided the language justifying polygamy.

Polygamy is a religious practice, isn't it?

no--it's a social construct.

 

[dilloduck]

It's interesting that two people of the same gender should be allowed to marry....but many who support that find polygamy repulsive.

Why is that ?

Stupid argument based on your equally moronic conclusion.....

Polygamy in the 19th century was found "illegal" in the US because, basically it ENSLAVED women based on a religious doctrine. Whereas, there was never a decision against gay marriages

Hey--Welcome to the 21st century. Hopey Changey Time

 

[PaintMyHouse]

"Polygamy Attorney On Gay Marriage Decision: SCOTUS Opinion ‘Resonates With Our Arguments’"

Turley has long been discredited concerning this false comparison fallacy, he's been whining about this nonsense since Lawrence.

Obergefell has no bearing whatsoever on 'polygamy,' unlike same-sex couples, three or more persons are not eligible to enter into marriage contracts; indeed, there are no civil rights 'violations' because one can't be 'discriminated' against concerning being denied access to a law that doesn't exist.

Gay marriage didn't exist under the law a few years ago, dumbass. The Supreme court just provided the language justifying polygamy.

BFD...

 

[NYcarbineer]

So you have no problem with several people getting married to each other. Good for you.

What did I say about putting words in my mouth?

Sorry----I keep thinking that you might be able to come up with a legal reason that polygamy should be illegal . Silly me.

Here's one: Tying up our court system.

lets say that Bill, Jack, Bob, and Jim marry Mary, Liz, Kenisha, and Joan. They have 8 kids, 9 cars, two boats, a large house, 401K accounts in each name with all the others as beneficiaries.

Now, Bill and Mary decide to divorce the rest of them. How many lawyers will be used, how much court time, how many paternity tests, how many custody agreements?

Then a year later, Kenisha decides that she is gay and wants to leave the marriage to move in with Lois who is married to 5 other women.

I know that sounds ridiculous, but it could be our future.

So it doesn't matter to you if a religion believes that their God sanctions polygamy?

what's your plan ? Getting religions to sanction what is acceptable to you ?

I'm asking you why polygamy isn't protected by the 1st amendment.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"Polygamy Attorney On Gay Marriage Decision: SCOTUS Opinion ‘Resonates With Our Arguments’"

Turley has long been discredited concerning this false comparison fallacy, he's been whining about this nonsense since Lawrence.

Obergefell has no bearing whatsoever on 'polygamy,' unlike same-sex couples, three or more persons are not eligible to enter into marriage contracts; indeed, there are no civil rights 'violations' because one can't be 'discriminated' against concerning being denied access to a law that doesn't exist.

Gay marriage didn't exist under the law a few years ago, dumbass. The Supreme court just provided the language justifying polygamy.

Polygamy is a religious practice, isn't it?

no--it's a social construct.

So are monogamy and heterosexuality then. Which destroys the argument that opposing same sex marriage is a religious belief.

 

[Plasmaball]

who cares you losers

 

[SwimExpert]

I think it would be a great thing for some men. Marry 4 or 5 gals, get them all on welfare, food stamps, free housing, SSDI and live large without working.

You must be 12. Any adult knows that trying to keep one woman happy is already a major headache.

You obviously know little about polygamy or the dynamics within it.

While the screachers constantly point at that moron who wound up getting arrested, there have been thousands of polygamous marriages (or relationships) if you will take place that the law does not know about.

Of course, they are not licensed.

Great, you killed the joke. *shakes head*

 

[dilloduck]

What did I say about putting words in my mouth?

Sorry----I keep thinking that you might be able to come up with a legal reason that polygamy should be illegal . Silly me.

Here's one: Tying up our court system.

lets say that Bill, Jack, Bob, and Jim marry Mary, Liz, Kenisha, and Joan. They have 8 kids, 9 cars, two boats, a large house, 401K accounts in each name with all the others as beneficiaries.

Now, Bill and Mary decide to divorce the rest of them. How many lawyers will be used, how much court time, how many paternity tests, how many custody agreements?

Then a year later, Kenisha decides that she is gay and wants to leave the marriage to move in with Lois who is married to 5 other women.

I know that sounds ridiculous, but it could be our future.

So it doesn't matter to you if a religion believes that their God sanctions polygamy?

what's your plan ? Getting religions to sanction what is acceptable to you ?

I'm asking you why polygamy isn't protected by the 1st amendment.

There's no reason that it shouldn't be. Run it by SCOTUS and see how they try to interpret it.

 

[dilloduck]

"Polygamy Attorney On Gay Marriage Decision: SCOTUS Opinion ‘Resonates With Our Arguments’"

Turley has long been discredited concerning this false comparison fallacy, he's been whining about this nonsense since Lawrence.

Obergefell has no bearing whatsoever on 'polygamy,' unlike same-sex couples, three or more persons are not eligible to enter into marriage contracts; indeed, there are no civil rights 'violations' because one can't be 'discriminated' against concerning being denied access to a law that doesn't exist.

Gay marriage didn't exist under the law a few years ago, dumbass. The Supreme court just provided the language justifying polygamy.

Polygamy is a religious practice, isn't it?

no--it's a social construct.

So are monogamy and heterosexuality then. Which destroys the argument that opposing same sex marriage is a religious belief.

Heterosexuality nor homosexuality are social constructs.

 

[nat4900]

What right wingers fail to distinguish is the basis for SCOTUS decisions regarding RELIGIOSITY versus SOCIAL ISSUES.