The South's Last, Desperate Stand

[Conservative65]

Mark, the 14th Amendment of which was used to justify Obergefell, doesn't play favorites. Therefore, when the Judicial Branch of government created a new class to add to the Constitution (a thing they're forbidden to do), of "just some of our favorite deviant sex behaviors but not others", polygamy and other forms of marriage yet to come, based off of consenting adult behaviors and associations were all immediately legal at the same time. Either they are all legal or they are all not. There's no gray area in the 14th where people can play "Let's pretend like we can discriminate between our favorite repugnant sex behaviors and other repugnant sex behaviors".

Nope. All of that is meaningless pseudo-legal gibberish. The Obergefell ruling didn't even mention polygamy. Let alone authorize it.

Once again you're offering us your imagination as the law. And then insisting that the Supreme Court on down is bound to whatever hapless batshit you make up.

Um, no. They aren't.

Law doesn't live in a vacuum dear. And no judge should know that better than the top of the line where there is no further appeal. The marriage contract never was limited to the people wearing the rings. In fact, it was created for the benefit of children and by extension, the society that had to deal with their personalities after they grew up. Long ago society recognized the inferior situations children wound up in as a result of their procreation and adults in their midst. And marriage was created precisely because society recognized that the best adjusted adults came from balanced homes where boys had a father and girls had a mother.

Um, sweetie.....you're not quoting the law. You're quoting yourself. And the imaginary nonsense you make up about the law is a vacuum. A meaningless void having no relevance to the actual law. No marriage is predicated on children or the ability to have them. No state requires children or the ability to have them in order to get married. And the USSC has explicitly contradicted your imagination:

"This does not mean that the right to marry is less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children. Precedent protects the right of a married couple not to procreate, so the right to marry cannot be conditioned on the capacity or commitment to procreate."

Remember, hon.....you don't have the slightest fucking clue what you're talking about. And no one is bound by the vacuum of your imagination.

It mentioned equal protection. That means for ALL types of marriage between consenting adults unless you're willing to say equality for all only applies to some.

 

[mdk]

Mark, the 14th Amendment of which was used to justify Obergefell, doesn't play favorites. Therefore, when the Judicial Branch of government created a new class to add to the Constitution (a thing they're forbidden to do), of "just some of our favorite deviant sex behaviors but not others", polygamy and other forms of marriage yet to come, based off of consenting adult behaviors and associations were all immediately legal at the same time. Either they are all legal or they are all not. There's no gray area in the 14th where people can play "Let's pretend like we can discriminate between our favorite repugnant sex behaviors and other repugnant sex behaviors".

Nope. All of that is meaningless pseudo-legal gibberish. The Obergefell ruling didn't even mention polygamy. Let alone authorize it.

Once again you're offering us your imagination as the law. And then insisting that the Supreme Court on down is bound to whatever hapless batshit you make up.

Um, no. They aren't.

Law doesn't live in a vacuum dear. And no judge should know that better than the top of the line where there is no further appeal. The marriage contract never was limited to the people wearing the rings. In fact, it was created for the benefit of children and by extension, the society that had to deal with their personalities after they grew up. Long ago society recognized the inferior situations children wound up in as a result of their procreation and adults in their midst. And marriage was created precisely because society recognized that the best adjusted adults came from balanced homes where boys had a father and girls had a mother.

Um, sweetie.....you're not quoting the law. You're quoting yourself. And the imaginary nonsense you make up about the law is a vacuum. A meaningless void having no relevance to the actual law. No marriage is predicated on children or the ability to have them. No state requires children or the ability to have them in order to get married. And the USSC has explicitly contradicted your imagination:

"This does not mean that the right to marry is less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children. Precedent protects the right of a married couple not to procreate, so the right to marry cannot be conditioned on the capacity or commitment to procreate."

Remember, hon.....you don't have the slightest fucking clue what you're talking about. And no one is bound by the vacuum of your imagination.

It mentioned equal protection. That means for ALL types of marriage between consenting adults unless you're willing to say equality for all only applies to some.

I wonder whose opinion concerning the law has more legal relevance? The opinion of the Supreme Court? Or the opinion of an internet random? Tough call. Yeah, I am going to have to go with the Supreme Court on this one.

 

[Conservative65]

Mark, the 14th Amendment of which was used to justify Obergefell, doesn't play favorites. Therefore, when the Judicial Branch of government created a new class to add to the Constitution (a thing they're forbidden to do), of "just some of our favorite deviant sex behaviors but not others", polygamy and other forms of marriage yet to come, based off of consenting adult behaviors and associations were all immediately legal at the same time. Either they are all legal or they are all not. There's no gray area in the 14th where people can play "Let's pretend like we can discriminate between our favorite repugnant sex behaviors and other repugnant sex behaviors".

Nope. All of that is meaningless pseudo-legal gibberish. The Obergefell ruling didn't even mention polygamy. Let alone authorize it.

Once again you're offering us your imagination as the law. And then insisting that the Supreme Court on down is bound to whatever hapless batshit you make up.

Um, no. They aren't.

Law doesn't live in a vacuum dear. And no judge should know that better than the top of the line where there is no further appeal. The marriage contract never was limited to the people wearing the rings. In fact, it was created for the benefit of children and by extension, the society that had to deal with their personalities after they grew up. Long ago society recognized the inferior situations children wound up in as a result of their procreation and adults in their midst. And marriage was created precisely because society recognized that the best adjusted adults came from balanced homes where boys had a father and girls had a mother.

Um, sweetie.....you're not quoting the law. You're quoting yourself. And the imaginary nonsense you make up about the law is a vacuum. A meaningless void having no relevance to the actual law. No marriage is predicated on children or the ability to have them. No state requires children or the ability to have them in order to get married. And the USSC has explicitly contradicted your imagination:

"This does not mean that the right to marry is less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children. Precedent protects the right of a married couple not to procreate, so the right to marry cannot be conditioned on the capacity or commitment to procreate."

Remember, hon.....you don't have the slightest fucking clue what you're talking about. And no one is bound by the vacuum of your imagination.

It mentioned equal protection. That means for ALL types of marriage between consenting adults unless you're willing to say equality for all only applies to some.

I wonder whose opinion concerning the law has more legal relevance? The opinion of the Supreme Court? Or the opinion of an internet random? Tough call. Yeah, I am going to have to go with the Supreme Court on this one.

The opinion of the Court was equal protection. Unless you apply it to all marriages between consenting adults, you don't support equality but a bunch of worthless faggots marrying.

 

[Skylar]

Mark, the 14th Amendment of which was used to justify Obergefell, doesn't play favorites. Therefore, when the Judicial Branch of government created a new class to add to the Constitution (a thing they're forbidden to do), of "just some of our favorite deviant sex behaviors but not others", polygamy and other forms of marriage yet to come, based off of consenting adult behaviors and associations were all immediately legal at the same time. Either they are all legal or they are all not. There's no gray area in the 14th where people can play "Let's pretend like we can discriminate between our favorite repugnant sex behaviors and other repugnant sex behaviors".

Nope. All of that is meaningless pseudo-legal gibberish. The Obergefell ruling didn't even mention polygamy. Let alone authorize it.

Once again you're offering us your imagination as the law. And then insisting that the Supreme Court on down is bound to whatever hapless batshit you make up.

Um, no. They aren't.

Law doesn't live in a vacuum dear. And no judge should know that better than the top of the line where there is no further appeal. The marriage contract never was limited to the people wearing the rings. In fact, it was created for the benefit of children and by extension, the society that had to deal with their personalities after they grew up. Long ago society recognized the inferior situations children wound up in as a result of their procreation and adults in their midst. And marriage was created precisely because society recognized that the best adjusted adults came from balanced homes where boys had a father and girls had a mother.

Um, sweetie.....you're not quoting the law. You're quoting yourself. And the imaginary nonsense you make up about the law is a vacuum. A meaningless void having no relevance to the actual law. No marriage is predicated on children or the ability to have them. No state requires children or the ability to have them in order to get married. And the USSC has explicitly contradicted your imagination:

"This does not mean that the right to marry is less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children. Precedent protects the right of a married couple not to procreate, so the right to marry cannot be conditioned on the capacity or commitment to procreate."

Remember, hon.....you don't have the slightest fucking clue what you're talking about. And no one is bound by the vacuum of your imagination.

It mentioned equal protection. That means for ALL types of marriage between consenting adults unless you're willing to say equality for all only applies to some.

Equal protection under the law. Show us anywhere where polygamy is part of the law or legally allowed....for anyone.

You can't.

There's a reason why polygamy has *never* followed the recognition of same sex marriage: they have nothing to do with each other.

 

[Conservative65]

Mark, the 14th Amendment of which was used to justify Obergefell, doesn't play favorites. Therefore, when the Judicial Branch of government created a new class to add to the Constitution (a thing they're forbidden to do), of "just some of our favorite deviant sex behaviors but not others", polygamy and other forms of marriage yet to come, based off of consenting adult behaviors and associations were all immediately legal at the same time. Either they are all legal or they are all not. There's no gray area in the 14th where people can play "Let's pretend like we can discriminate between our favorite repugnant sex behaviors and other repugnant sex behaviors".

Nope. All of that is meaningless pseudo-legal gibberish. The Obergefell ruling didn't even mention polygamy. Let alone authorize it.

Once again you're offering us your imagination as the law. And then insisting that the Supreme Court on down is bound to whatever hapless batshit you make up.

Um, no. They aren't.

Law doesn't live in a vacuum dear. And no judge should know that better than the top of the line where there is no further appeal. The marriage contract never was limited to the people wearing the rings. In fact, it was created for the benefit of children and by extension, the society that had to deal with their personalities after they grew up. Long ago society recognized the inferior situations children wound up in as a result of their procreation and adults in their midst. And marriage was created precisely because society recognized that the best adjusted adults came from balanced homes where boys had a father and girls had a mother.

Um, sweetie.....you're not quoting the law. You're quoting yourself. And the imaginary nonsense you make up about the law is a vacuum. A meaningless void having no relevance to the actual law. No marriage is predicated on children or the ability to have them. No state requires children or the ability to have them in order to get married. And the USSC has explicitly contradicted your imagination:

"This does not mean that the right to marry is less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children. Precedent protects the right of a married couple not to procreate, so the right to marry cannot be conditioned on the capacity or commitment to procreate."

Remember, hon.....you don't have the slightest fucking clue what you're talking about. And no one is bound by the vacuum of your imagination.

It mentioned equal protection. That means for ALL types of marriage between consenting adults unless you're willing to say equality for all only applies to some.

Equal protection under the law. Show us anywhere where polygamy is part of the law or legally allowed....for anyone.

You can't.

There's a reason why polygamy has *never* followed the recognition of same sex marriage: they have nothing to do with each other.

So you're saying equal, the argument put forth by the faggots when they said they should have the right to do what heterosexuals can do, doesn't really mean the same for everyone? Could have fooled me. That was the argument by the peter puffers. They demanded they be treated the SAME as others who wanted to marry. Guess that's not good enough when others want the SAME treatment.

 

[mdk]

Mark, the 14th Amendment of which was used to justify Obergefell, doesn't play favorites. Therefore, when the Judicial Branch of government created a new class to add to the Constitution (a thing they're forbidden to do), of "just some of our favorite deviant sex behaviors but not others", polygamy and other forms of marriage yet to come, based off of consenting adult behaviors and associations were all immediately legal at the same time. Either they are all legal or they are all not. There's no gray area in the 14th where people can play "Let's pretend like we can discriminate between our favorite repugnant sex behaviors and other repugnant sex behaviors".

Nope. All of that is meaningless pseudo-legal gibberish. The Obergefell ruling didn't even mention polygamy. Let alone authorize it.

Once again you're offering us your imagination as the law. And then insisting that the Supreme Court on down is bound to whatever hapless batshit you make up.

Um, no. They aren't.

Law doesn't live in a vacuum dear. And no judge should know that better than the top of the line where there is no further appeal. The marriage contract never was limited to the people wearing the rings. In fact, it was created for the benefit of children and by extension, the society that had to deal with their personalities after they grew up. Long ago society recognized the inferior situations children wound up in as a result of their procreation and adults in their midst. And marriage was created precisely because society recognized that the best adjusted adults came from balanced homes where boys had a father and girls had a mother.

Um, sweetie.....you're not quoting the law. You're quoting yourself. And the imaginary nonsense you make up about the law is a vacuum. A meaningless void having no relevance to the actual law. No marriage is predicated on children or the ability to have them. No state requires children or the ability to have them in order to get married. And the USSC has explicitly contradicted your imagination:

"This does not mean that the right to marry is less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children. Precedent protects the right of a married couple not to procreate, so the right to marry cannot be conditioned on the capacity or commitment to procreate."

Remember, hon.....you don't have the slightest fucking clue what you're talking about. And no one is bound by the vacuum of your imagination.

It mentioned equal protection. That means for ALL types of marriage between consenting adults unless you're willing to say equality for all only applies to some.

I wonder whose opinion concerning the law has more legal relevance? The opinion of the Supreme Court? Or the opinion of an internet random? Tough call. Yeah, I am going to have to go with the Supreme Court on this one.

The opinion of the Court was equal protection. Unless you apply it to all marriages between consenting adults, you don't support equality but a bunch of worthless faggots marrying.

You're free to to assign whatever you wish concerning the ruling in June but nobody is bound by whatever bullshit you make up. You would wise to remember that. I hope you don't though b/c watching your flailing hissy fits are most amusing.

 

[Skylar]

Mark, the 14th Amendment of which was used to justify Obergefell, doesn't play favorites. Therefore, when the Judicial Branch of government created a new class to add to the Constitution (a thing they're forbidden to do), of "just some of our favorite deviant sex behaviors but not others", polygamy and other forms of marriage yet to come, based off of consenting adult behaviors and associations were all immediately legal at the same time. Either they are all legal or they are all not. There's no gray area in the 14th where people can play "Let's pretend like we can discriminate between our favorite repugnant sex behaviors and other repugnant sex behaviors".

Nope. All of that is meaningless pseudo-legal gibberish. The Obergefell ruling didn't even mention polygamy. Let alone authorize it.

Once again you're offering us your imagination as the law. And then insisting that the Supreme Court on down is bound to whatever hapless batshit you make up.

Um, no. They aren't.

Law doesn't live in a vacuum dear. And no judge should know that better than the top of the line where there is no further appeal. The marriage contract never was limited to the people wearing the rings. In fact, it was created for the benefit of children and by extension, the society that had to deal with their personalities after they grew up. Long ago society recognized the inferior situations children wound up in as a result of their procreation and adults in their midst. And marriage was created precisely because society recognized that the best adjusted adults came from balanced homes where boys had a father and girls had a mother.

Um, sweetie.....you're not quoting the law. You're quoting yourself. And the imaginary nonsense you make up about the law is a vacuum. A meaningless void having no relevance to the actual law. No marriage is predicated on children or the ability to have them. No state requires children or the ability to have them in order to get married. And the USSC has explicitly contradicted your imagination:

"This does not mean that the right to marry is less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children. Precedent protects the right of a married couple not to procreate, so the right to marry cannot be conditioned on the capacity or commitment to procreate."

Remember, hon.....you don't have the slightest fucking clue what you're talking about. And no one is bound by the vacuum of your imagination.

It mentioned equal protection. That means for ALL types of marriage between consenting adults unless you're willing to say equality for all only applies to some.

Equal protection under the law. Show us anywhere where polygamy is part of the law or legally allowed....for anyone.

You can't.

There's a reason why polygamy has *never* followed the recognition of same sex marriage: they have nothing to do with each other.

So you're saying equal, the argument put forth by the faggots when they said they should have the right to do what heterosexuals can do, doesn't really mean the same for everyone? Could have fooled me.

I'm saying what I said:

Show us anywhere where polygamy is part of the law or legally allowed....for anyone.

You can't. You're done.

That was the argument by the peter puffers. They demanded they be treated the SAME as others who wanted to marry. Guess that's not good enough when others want the SAME treatment.

They wanted access to the same union. And they have it. Polygamy isn't the same union. Its not part of the law.

And as the 14th amendment makes ludicrously clear, its equal protection under the law that it articulates.

 

[Conservative65]

Mark, the 14th Amendment of which was used to justify Obergefell, doesn't play favorites. Therefore, when the Judicial Branch of government created a new class to add to the Constitution (a thing they're forbidden to do), of "just some of our favorite deviant sex behaviors but not others", polygamy and other forms of marriage yet to come, based off of consenting adult behaviors and associations were all immediately legal at the same time. Either they are all legal or they are all not. There's no gray area in the 14th where people can play "Let's pretend like we can discriminate between our favorite repugnant sex behaviors and other repugnant sex behaviors".

Nope. All of that is meaningless pseudo-legal gibberish. The Obergefell ruling didn't even mention polygamy. Let alone authorize it.

Once again you're offering us your imagination as the law. And then insisting that the Supreme Court on down is bound to whatever hapless batshit you make up.

Um, no. They aren't.

Law doesn't live in a vacuum dear. And no judge should know that better than the top of the line where there is no further appeal. The marriage contract never was limited to the people wearing the rings. In fact, it was created for the benefit of children and by extension, the society that had to deal with their personalities after they grew up. Long ago society recognized the inferior situations children wound up in as a result of their procreation and adults in their midst. And marriage was created precisely because society recognized that the best adjusted adults came from balanced homes where boys had a father and girls had a mother.

Um, sweetie.....you're not quoting the law. You're quoting yourself. And the imaginary nonsense you make up about the law is a vacuum. A meaningless void having no relevance to the actual law. No marriage is predicated on children or the ability to have them. No state requires children or the ability to have them in order to get married. And the USSC has explicitly contradicted your imagination:

"This does not mean that the right to marry is less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children. Precedent protects the right of a married couple not to procreate, so the right to marry cannot be conditioned on the capacity or commitment to procreate."

Remember, hon.....you don't have the slightest fucking clue what you're talking about. And no one is bound by the vacuum of your imagination.

It mentioned equal protection. That means for ALL types of marriage between consenting adults unless you're willing to say equality for all only applies to some.

I wonder whose opinion concerning the law has more legal relevance? The opinion of the Supreme Court? Or the opinion of an internet random? Tough call. Yeah, I am going to have to go with the Supreme Court on this one.

The opinion of the Court was equal protection. Unless you apply it to all marriages between consenting adults, you don't support equality but a bunch of worthless faggots marrying.

You're free to to assign whatever you wish concerning the ruling in June but nobody is bound by whatever bullshit you make up. You would wise to remember that. I hope you don't though b/c watching your flailing hissy fits are most amusing.

You're free to claim you support the ruling because it meant equal protection when, in fact, you're were only concerned about a bunch of abnormal faggots being appeased.

 

[Conservative65]

Mark, the 14th Amendment of which was used to justify Obergefell, doesn't play favorites. Therefore, when the Judicial Branch of government created a new class to add to the Constitution (a thing they're forbidden to do), of "just some of our favorite deviant sex behaviors but not others", polygamy and other forms of marriage yet to come, based off of consenting adult behaviors and associations were all immediately legal at the same time. Either they are all legal or they are all not. There's no gray area in the 14th where people can play "Let's pretend like we can discriminate between our favorite repugnant sex behaviors and other repugnant sex behaviors".

Nope. All of that is meaningless pseudo-legal gibberish. The Obergefell ruling didn't even mention polygamy. Let alone authorize it.

Once again you're offering us your imagination as the law. And then insisting that the Supreme Court on down is bound to whatever hapless batshit you make up.

Um, no. They aren't.

Law doesn't live in a vacuum dear. And no judge should know that better than the top of the line where there is no further appeal. The marriage contract never was limited to the people wearing the rings. In fact, it was created for the benefit of children and by extension, the society that had to deal with their personalities after they grew up. Long ago society recognized the inferior situations children wound up in as a result of their procreation and adults in their midst. And marriage was created precisely because society recognized that the best adjusted adults came from balanced homes where boys had a father and girls had a mother.

Um, sweetie.....you're not quoting the law. You're quoting yourself. And the imaginary nonsense you make up about the law is a vacuum. A meaningless void having no relevance to the actual law. No marriage is predicated on children or the ability to have them. No state requires children or the ability to have them in order to get married. And the USSC has explicitly contradicted your imagination:

"This does not mean that the right to marry is less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children. Precedent protects the right of a married couple not to procreate, so the right to marry cannot be conditioned on the capacity or commitment to procreate."

Remember, hon.....you don't have the slightest fucking clue what you're talking about. And no one is bound by the vacuum of your imagination.

It mentioned equal protection. That means for ALL types of marriage between consenting adults unless you're willing to say equality for all only applies to some.

Equal protection under the law. Show us anywhere where polygamy is part of the law or legally allowed....for anyone.

You can't.

There's a reason why polygamy has *never* followed the recognition of same sex marriage: they have nothing to do with each other.

So you're saying equal, the argument put forth by the faggots when they said they should have the right to do what heterosexuals can do, doesn't really mean the same for everyone? Could have fooled me.

I'm saying what I said:

Show us anywhere where polygamy is part of the law or legally allowed....for anyone.

You can't. You're done.

That was the argument by the peter puffers. They demanded they be treated the SAME as others who wanted to marry. Guess that's not good enough when others want the SAME treatment.

They wanted access to the same union. And they have it. Polygamy isn't the same union. Its not part of the law.

And as the 14th amendment makes ludicrously clear, its equal protection under the law that it articulates.

Typical faggots like you getting what you want then refusing to acknowledge that others deserve what you claim you fought for.

Keep sucking dicks. It's all you're good at. Maybe you'll get AIDS.

 

[mdk]

Equal protection under the law. Show us anywhere where polygamy is part of the law or legally allowed....for anyone.

You can't.

There's a reason why polygamy has *never* followed the recognition of same sex marriage: they have nothing to do with each other.

These crybabies think consistently repeating the same red herring will somehow make their arguments more valid and gay marriage illegal again. lol

 

[Skylar]

Nope. All of that is meaningless pseudo-legal gibberish. The Obergefell ruling didn't even mention polygamy. Let alone authorize it.

Once again you're offering us your imagination as the law. And then insisting that the Supreme Court on down is bound to whatever hapless batshit you make up.

Um, no. They aren't.

Um, sweetie.....you're not quoting the law. You're quoting yourself. And the imaginary nonsense you make up about the law is a vacuum. A meaningless void having no relevance to the actual law. No marriage is predicated on children or the ability to have them. No state requires children or the ability to have them in order to get married. And the USSC has explicitly contradicted your imagination:

Remember, hon.....you don't have the slightest fucking clue what you're talking about. And no one is bound by the vacuum of your imagination.

It mentioned equal protection. That means for ALL types of marriage between consenting adults unless you're willing to say equality for all only applies to some.

Equal protection under the law. Show us anywhere where polygamy is part of the law or legally allowed....for anyone.

You can't.

There's a reason why polygamy has *never* followed the recognition of same sex marriage: they have nothing to do with each other.

So you're saying equal, the argument put forth by the faggots when they said they should have the right to do what heterosexuals can do, doesn't really mean the same for everyone? Could have fooled me.

I'm saying what I said:

Show us anywhere where polygamy is part of the law or legally allowed....for anyone.

You can't. You're done.

That was the argument by the peter puffers. They demanded they be treated the SAME as others who wanted to marry. Guess that's not good enough when others want the SAME treatment.

They wanted access to the same union. And they have it. Polygamy isn't the same union. Its not part of the law.

And as the 14th amendment makes ludicrously clear, its equal protection under the law that it articulates.

Typical faggots like you getting what you want then refusing to acknowledge that others deserve what you claim you fought for.

Keep sucking dicks. It's all you're good at. Maybe you'll get AIDS.

Opposition to gay marriage is centered most strongly among the old. Its the only demo where support isn't already the majority. And that opposition has a shelf life. As your ilk take inevitable dirt naps, support for same sex marriage continues to climb.

I give it 10 years before we look back on your ilk with the same dumbfounded revulsion reserved today for segregationists and opposition to the 19th amendment.

Enjoy irrelevance.

 

[mdk]

Poor little irrelevant Conservative65

 

[Skylar]

Equal protection under the law. Show us anywhere where polygamy is part of the law or legally allowed....for anyone.

You can't.

There's a reason why polygamy has *never* followed the recognition of same sex marriage: they have nothing to do with each other.

These crybabies think consistently repeating the same red herring will somehow make their arguments more valid and gay marriage illegal again. lol

The argument has long since been debunked. Putting a saddle on that dead horse serves only one purpose: to use the word 'faggot' as many times as possible.

Its the rhetorical equivalent of listening to a four year old learning to curse.

 

[mdk]

Equal protection under the law. Show us anywhere where polygamy is part of the law or legally allowed....for anyone.

You can't.

There's a reason why polygamy has *never* followed the recognition of same sex marriage: they have nothing to do with each other.

These crybabies think consistently repeating the same red herring will somehow make their arguments more valid and gay marriage illegal again. lol

The argument has long since been debunked. Putting a saddle on that dead horse serves only one purpose: to use the word 'faggot' as many times as possible.

Its the rhetorical equivalent of listening to a four year old learning to curse.

I love it. The more these whiny pussies lash out, the more people they drive right into the welcoming arms of the gay community and their allies.

 

[initforme]

Someone please explain how gay marriage is a threat to traditional marriage. Why should a heterosexual married christian marriage be worried about it?

 

[initforme]

And don't mention tradition because that word has zero ramifications here.

 

[Skylar]

Equal protection under the law. Show us anywhere where polygamy is part of the law or legally allowed....for anyone.

You can't.

There's a reason why polygamy has *never* followed the recognition of same sex marriage: they have nothing to do with each other.

These crybabies think consistently repeating the same red herring will somehow make their arguments more valid and gay marriage illegal again. lol

The argument has long since been debunked. Putting a saddle on that dead horse serves only one purpose: to use the word 'faggot' as many times as possible.

Its the rhetorical equivalent of listening to a four year old learning to curse.

I love it. The more these whiny pussies lash out, the more people they drive right into the welcoming arms of the gay community and their allies.

Yup. One the one side you have same sex couples getting married, starting families, going to PTA meetings, getting sick of 'Let it Go', cursing as the step on legos, changing diapers.

On the other hand, you have hateful old people screaming 'faggot!' and 'get AIDS!'.

Its pretty simple math on who to side with.

 

[Skylar]

Someone please explain how gay marriage is a threat to traditional marriage. Why should a heterosexual married christian marriage be worried about it?

Its pristinely irrelevant. A gay couple getting married has nothing to do with the marriage of anyone else.

 

[initforme]

Precisely. My marriage is not threatened or under attack. That is a fear tactic of a group that is for freedom and liberty but for regulating marriage. Trivial folk.

 

[80zephyr]

Mark, the 14th Amendment of which was used to justify Obergefell, doesn't play favorites. Therefore, when the Judicial Branch of government created a new class to add to the Constitution (a thing they're forbidden to do), of "just some of our favorite deviant sex behaviors but not others", polygamy and other forms of marriage yet to come, based off of consenting adult behaviors and associations were all immediately legal at the same time. Either they are all legal or they are all not. There's no gray area in the 14th where people can play "Let's pretend like we can discriminate between our favorite repugnant sex behaviors and other repugnant sex behaviors".

Nope. All of that is meaningless pseudo-legal gibberish. The Obergefell ruling didn't even mention polygamy. Let alone authorize it.

Once again you're offering us your imagination as the law. And then insisting that the Supreme Court on down is bound to whatever hapless batshit you make up.

Um, no. They aren't.

Law doesn't live in a vacuum dear. And no judge should know that better than the top of the line where there is no further appeal. The marriage contract never was limited to the people wearing the rings. In fact, it was created for the benefit of children and by extension, the society that had to deal with their personalities after they grew up. Long ago society recognized the inferior situations children wound up in as a result of their procreation and adults in their midst. And marriage was created precisely because society recognized that the best adjusted adults came from balanced homes where boys had a father and girls had a mother.

Um, sweetie.....you're not quoting the law. You're quoting yourself. And the imaginary nonsense you make up about the law is a vacuum. A meaningless void having no relevance to the actual law. No marriage is predicated on children or the ability to have them. No state requires children or the ability to have them in order to get married. And the USSC has explicitly contradicted your imagination:

"This does not mean that the right to marry is less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children. Precedent protects the right of a married couple not to procreate, so the right to marry cannot be conditioned on the capacity or commitment to procreate."

Remember, hon.....you don't have the slightest fucking clue what you're talking about. And no one is bound by the vacuum of your imagination.

It mentioned equal protection. That means for ALL types of marriage between consenting adults unless you're willing to say equality for all only applies to some.

Equal protection under the law. Show us anywhere where polygamy is part of the law or legally allowed....for anyone.

You can't.

There's a reason why polygamy has *never* followed the recognition of same sex marriage: they have nothing to do with each other.

So you're saying equal, the argument put forth by the faggots when they said they should have the right to do what heterosexuals can do, doesn't really mean the same for everyone? Could have fooled me.

I'm saying what I said:

Show us anywhere where polygamy is part of the law or legally allowed....for anyone.

You can't. You're done.

That was the argument by the peter puffers. They demanded they be treated the SAME as others who wanted to marry. Guess that's not good enough when others want the SAME treatment.

They wanted access to the same union. And they have it. Polygamy isn't the same union. Its not part of the law.

And as the 14th amendment makes ludicrously clear, its equal protection under the law that it articulates.

You stated: They wanted access to the same union.

Thats a lie. They wanted access to an expanded definition of the union, which meant two members of the same gender.

Since we now have proof that the definition of marriage can be expanded, why can't it be expanded further?

If you say that two is the limit, then you are now a bigot by forcing your beliefs on others.

Mark