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

[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.

Heterosexuality nor homosexuality are social constructs.

What?

lol

 

[TooTall]

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.

It would be a bit of a challenge.

 

[dilloduck]

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.

What?

lol

Monogamy may be a social construct but one's sexual preference is not. Am I going to fast for you ??

 

[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.

Polygamy is a religious practice, isn't it?

What difference does that make?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

What?

lol

Monogamy may be a social construct but one's sexual preference is not. Am I going to fast for you ??

So gays are invariably born that way?

 

[dilloduck]

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.

What?

lol

Monogamy may be a social construct but one's sexual preference is not. Am I going to fast for you ??

So gays are invariably born that way?

Unless they attend some queer training school that no one knows about.

 

[Silhouette]

Monogamy may be a social construct but one's sexual preference is not. Am I going to fast for you ??

So gays are invariably born that way?

Unless they attend some queer training school that no one knows about.

As it happens, some do know about it:

"Conditioning and Sexual Behavior; A Review" out of a Quebec, Canada university (The title says it all) is a compilation of hundreds of peer-reviewed studies that found that sexual orientation is learned.

http://www.pphp.concordia.ca/fac/pfaus/Pfaus-Kippin-Centeno(2001).pdf

 

[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?

What difference does that make?

If polygamy is part of a religion, then according to some it merits protection under the 1st Amendment.

The religious belief that marriage is one man and more than one woman would have equal standing to the claimed religious belief of many Christians that marriage is one man one woman.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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

It Enslaved women back in the 19th century ? And who determined that gem ?

And women today who want to be married to an already married man are also enslaved ?

This should be good.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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

Yes, forget the Constitution. It really does not matter any more.....or so it would seem from your post.

SCOTUS ruling on Social Issues......now that's funny.

 

[nat4900]

Enslaved women back in the 19th century ? And who determined that gem ?

Actually, the SCOTUS did.

 

[Redfish]

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

I'm sorry to say it, but you are an idiot. The gay marriage debate is not about equal rights, it never was.

It was, and is, about using govt to mandate that society as a whole accept homosexuality as a normal human condition, but its not and never will be no matter how many crazy ass libs in black robes try to make it so.

 

[Redfish]

"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

 

[Redfish]

"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.

No one is biological normalcy, the other is biological abnormality.

 

[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

Ever heard of the Mormons? Ever read the Koran?

Is any marriage a religious practice?

 

[Redfish]

"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?

What difference does that make?

If polygamy is part of a religion, then according to some it merits protection under the 1st Amendment.

The religious belief that marriage is one man and more than one woman would have equal standing to the claimed religious belief of many Christians that marriage is one man one woman.

Let me get this straight, are you supporting polygamy?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

No one is biological normalcy, the other is biological abnormality.

Blue eyes are an abnormality by that measure. What restraints should we put on the rights of blue-eyed people?

 

[Redfish]

"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

Ever heard of the Mormons? Ever read the Koran?

Is any marriage a religious practice?

Some mormons and some muslims practice polygamy. The definition of marriage is a societal issue, not a religious issue. As such, it should be decided by society as a whole, not 9 old farts in black robes, or an ayatollah smoking a hooka pipe.

 

[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?

What difference does that make?

If polygamy is part of a religion, then according to some it merits protection under the 1st Amendment.

The religious belief that marriage is one man and more than one woman would have equal standing to the claimed religious belief of many Christians that marriage is one man one woman.

Let me get this straight, are you supporting polygamy?

If you were able to read my post you would see the words 'according to some'.

 

[Redfish]

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.

No one is biological normalcy, the other is biological abnormality.

Blue eyes are an abnormality by that measure. What restraints should we put on the rights of blue-eyed people?

If all blue eyed people were queer you might have a point, but they aren't.