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

[Redfish]

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'.

the point of this thread is that the SC ruling on gay marriage provides a valid legal precedent for approval of all forms of plural marriage and any other combination that humans can come up with.

 

[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?

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.

Then no one has a claim to legally discriminate against gay married couples on the grounds that their opposition to gay marriage is a religious belief?

Are you throwing that whole argument out the window now?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

WTF? Try to stay in adult mode if you can.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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'.

the point of this thread is that the SC ruling on gay marriage provides a valid legal precedent for approval of all forms of plural marriage and any other combination that humans can come up with.

It doesn't. If that were true then the precedent was set with the first marriage laws.

 

[Redfish]

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.

Then no one has a claim to legally discriminate against gay married couples on the grounds that their opposition to gay marriage is a religious belief?

Are you throwing that whole argument out the window now?

Who said that the objection was only based on religion? not me.

Human anatomy and biology provide a much stronger basis for objection than any religion.

 

[Redfish]

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'.

the point of this thread is that the SC ruling on gay marriage provides a valid legal precedent for approval of all forms of plural marriage and any other combination that humans can come up with.

It doesn't. If that were true then the precedent was set with the first marriage laws.

No, try to think before typing. When marriage was only one man and one woman there was no precedent set for anything else. Now, if marriage can be two men or two women, THAT sets the precedent for other forms of marriage. The deviation from the norm sets the precedent for more deviations.

 

[Redfish]

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.

WTF? Try to stay in adult mode if you can.

you threw in the ridiculous blue eye analogy attempt.

 

[Redfish]

Tell ya what, carbon. Lets just sit back for a few months and see what happens. It won't be long before the next SC marriage case. Then we will see who has correctly predicted the future.

Ranting back and forth about it now is a waste of time.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Then no one has a claim to legally discriminate against gay married couples on the grounds that their opposition to gay marriage is a religious belief?

Are you throwing that whole argument out the window now?

Who said that the objection was only based on religion? not me.

Human anatomy and biology provide a much stronger basis for objection than any religion.

It's not your right to tell a person what their biology is supposed to make them think and feel. If two women feel a mutual attraction and bond that is virtually indistinguishable from the same condition that a man and woman may feel,

why should the latter be able to act on it with the state's legal blessing, and not the former?

 

[Redfish]

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.

Then no one has a claim to legally discriminate against gay married couples on the grounds that their opposition to gay marriage is a religious belief?

Are you throwing that whole argument out the window now?

Who said that the objection was only based on religion? not me.

Human anatomy and biology provide a much stronger basis for objection than any religion.

It's not your right to tell a person what their biology is supposed to make them think and feel. If two women feel a mutual attraction and bond that is virtually indistinguishable from the same condition that a man and woman may feel,

why should the latter be able to act on it with the state's legal blessing, and not the former?

the exact same argument can be made for polygamy, pedifilia, sibling marriage, and all other forms of human groupings as marriages.

the answer is that all societies must decide what they consider acceptable and unacceptable behavior of their members. and those decisions should be made by majority vote of all members of the society.

A penis and a vagina have very clear roles and purposes in human biology and anatomy. The rectum is not designed for penis penetration. This is not really anywhere near as complicated as you libs want to make it.