Gay-Sex Marriage "Settled"..Who Decides Polygamy (Polyamory) Next?

[Silhouette]

This got spammed off the last page... Pop?

Neither does a guy humping a donkey?
Because it doesn't, you want that legal
Got it

Silly... I'm talking about a human sexual orientation: polyamory. Leave your fantasies out of this. This is a serious topic. The Brown family has vowed to take their case to the US Supreme Court. You think the Court will deny them and let states continue to suppress the love polygamists share into the proverbial closet? Or do you think they'll take up the case and see if one sexual orientation is as good as any other when it comes to sex between HUMANS as assigned new "rights to marry"?

 

[Silhouette]

Polygamy and close relatives marrying is about a decade away at most.

The Brown's case will be a lot sooner than that. Their little ones who are "in immediate legal harm" will be in college before then.

 

[Pop23]

This got spammed off the last page... Pop?

Neither does a guy humping a donkey?
Because it doesn't, you want that legal
Got it

Silly... I'm talking about a human sexual orientation: polyamory. Leave your fantasies out of this. This is a serious topic. The Brown family has vowed to take their case to the US Supreme Court. You think the Court will deny them and let states continue to suppress the love polygamists share into the proverbial closet? Or do you think they'll take up the case and see if one sexual orientation is as good as any other when it comes to sex between HUMANS as assigned new "rights to marry"?

I believe I was responding to yet another " if it doesn't affect you, why do you care?" Gambit.

No, I do not think beastialty will become legal, just demonstrating the stupidity of the argument.

 

[Pop23]

We should become a Theocracy and have religious leaders dictate to us. Like the founders wanted.

You think there aren't secular reasons to desire polygamy remain banned?

There are. For one, the legal hurdles in a polygamous marriage contract. Guardianship of children, division of assets, tax status for all parties, etc. It's completely different from gay marriage, the same as how different marriage to an animal or object are different. But if someone wants to work all that out, and demand it, well whatever. It doesn't affect me. I doubt they'll manage it though.

Most all are true, but prenuptial agreement can easily include multiples. Look at how any other partnerships handle it....

And biological children, in an all same sex multiple partner marriage?????

You're kidding right?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Heard this before? Polygamy was quite recently decriminalized in Utah. Like Lawrence v Texas, it's just a matter of time before that applies to all 50 states. If it's legal for a man to use another man's anus as an artificial vagina (closet issues anyone?), then a man simply taking the natural use of women and needing more than one partner to stay sexually satisfied is a legal-no-brainer. It's a shoe-in..

December 13, 2013
It is with a great pleasure this evening to announce that decision of United States District Court judge Clarke Waddoups striking down key portions of the Utah polygamy law as unconstitutional. The Brown family and counsel have spent years in both the criminal phase of this case and then our challenge to the law itself in federal court. Despite the public statements of professors and experts that we could not prevail in this case, the court has shown that it is the rule of law that governs in this country.. Federal Court Strikes Down Criminalization of Polygamy In Utah JONATHAN TURLEY

Well..hmmm...the rule of law is done only one way I know of, via legislation. Does he mean "the special interpretations of certain favorable judges" of the "rule of law"? Yes, I think that's more accurate.

When the SCOTUS created "behaviors as race" to add to the Constitution recently, did it ennumerate just gay sex practitioners? Or does it include other kinks like polygamy and incest? And if not, why not? Why just gay sex as the Court's pet favorite?

Who is more important in marriage: 1. Adults or 2. The children that are formed there? And who decides between 1. or 2. ? What part of the Constitution did the Court interpret that children should not be considered in any decision about who may marry? Or, rather, what part of the Constitution says that the majority may not consent on such a vital institution as marriage where such a consent is set to drastically alter the future generations of children/society raised under the notion that "a father isn't vital/important" or "a mother isn't vital/important"? What part of the Constitution allows the Court to remove such a debate from the People, and instead decree what is essentially a royal-mandate on just some (but not all) of their favorite deviant sex behaviors?

Remember: in a contest between gay adults and children, the latter is vastly more oppressed as a group. They cannot vote and they cannot file lawsuits, bribe judges or even drive to a picket line to voice their opposition. They sit, for all intents and purposes, with their hands tied behind their backs and a gag duct taped in their mouths on this issue. All they had were the voices of opposition, those cordially-opposed, whose voices also have now been silenced. Their last chance at a say in this matter was ripped away June 26, 2015.

Where has the authority now been placed to decide polygamy and incest marriage lawsuits? With the Governed or the Court?

Who gets to decide on those who are polyamorously-oriented sexually? The states or SCOTUS? No, really, this is a crucially-important question because it will be coming up within the next two years or less. The Browns have vowed to take their case to the SCOTUS if necessary. Will the states be shut out again; or will the SCOTUS determine that different sexual orientations are to be handled differently as to the 14th Amendment's new addition June 26, 2015?

Oh that's already been 'voted on' at the Supreme Legislature.

The Five Degenerates found in the US Constitution a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO MARRY. Anyone... anything, any time.

All we're waitin' on is for the first examples to come along. GUARANTEE YOU that there's plans all over Massachusetts for double ovens, kids and towels.

 

[Pop23]

Polygamy and close relatives marrying is about a decade away at most.

The Brown's case will be a lot sooner than that. Their little ones who are "in immediate legal harm" will be in college before then.

They will simply claim that their children require the same dignity and respect that same sex couples children just received.

How do you fight that?

Done deal doods

 

[TheOldSchool]

For fucks sake just be good to each other you foolish people. How about you do less judging and more supporting? Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The greatest idea ever presented to humanity, and yet so many do the opposite; especially those who claim to believe in it the most.

 

[Carla_Danger]

How many threads per day does Silhouette start concerning gay sex?

Something is bad wrong with Sil.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

For fucks sake just be good to each other you foolish people. How about you do less judging and more supporting?...

See how it works? Less Judging axiomatically MUST MEAN: More supporting. To not beat their ass, requires that you must endorse their poor behavior.

Understand Reader, this is not the sort of honesty that you'd expect from these would-be 'people'. But their feelin' cocky, all bowed up with their recent win over at the new Federal Supreme Legislature, they feel like their ideas are Popularly supported, forgetting all the BS they laid down to conceal those ideas.

 

[Papageorgio]

For fucks sake just be good to each other you foolish people. How about you do less judging and more supporting? Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The greatest idea ever presented to humanity, and yet so many do the opposite; especially those who claim to believe in it the most.

So we let close family members marry and let people marry multiple partners.

 

[Papageorgio]

How many threads per day does Silhouette start concerning gay sex?

Something is bad wrong with Sil.

How many threads are you going to comment about gay sex? Something could be bad wrong with you.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

How many threads per day does Silhouette start concerning gay sex?

Something is bad wrong with Sil.

Now honestly, do you actually believe that your silly assed implications is going to prevent someone from contesting degeneracy?

SERIOUSLY?

 

[TheOldSchool]

For fucks sake just be good to each other you foolish people. How about you do less judging and more supporting?...

See how it works? Less Judging axiomatically MUST MEAN: More supporting. To not beat their ass, requires that you must endorse their poor behavior.

Understand Reader, this is not the sort of honesty that you'd expect from these would-be 'people'. But their feelin' cocky, all bowed up with their recent win over at the new Federal Supreme Legislature, they feel like their ideas are Popularly supported, forgetting all the BS they laid down to conceal those ideas.

For fucks sake just be good to each other you foolish people. How about you do less judging and more supporting? Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The greatest idea ever presented to humanity, and yet so many do the opposite; especially those who claim to believe in it the most.

So we let close family members marry and let people marry multiple partners.

Amazing how outlandish and controversial you clowns turn "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" into. I'm at peace. It must be terrible to be in as much turmoil as you two are.

 

[Carla_Danger]

How many threads per day does Silhouette start concerning gay sex?

Something is bad wrong with Sil.

How many threads are you going to comment about gay sex? Something could be bad wrong with you.

I don't give a rats ass about consenting adults having sex. It's none of my business.

This is freaky scary... This poster needs help.

 

[Carla_Danger]

How many threads per day does Silhouette start concerning gay sex?

Something is bad wrong with Sil.

Now honestly, do you actually believe that your silly assed implications is going to prevent someone from contesting degeneracy?

SERIOUSLY?

And I'm going to point out the fact that you are mentally ill.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

For fucks sake just be good to each other you foolish people. How about you do less judging and more supporting?...

See how it works? Less Judging axiomatically MUST MEAN: More supporting. To not beat their ass, requires that you must endorse their poor behavior.

Understand Reader, this is not the sort of honesty that you'd expect from these would-be 'people'. But their feelin' cocky, all bowed up with their recent win over at the new Federal Supreme Legislature, they feel like their ideas are Popularly supported, forgetting all the BS they laid down to conceal those ideas.

For fucks sake just be good to each other you foolish people. How about you do less judging and more supporting? Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The greatest idea ever presented to humanity, and yet so many do the opposite; especially those who claim to believe in it the most.

So we let close family members marry and let people marry multiple partners.

Amazing how outlandish and controversial you clowns turn "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" into. I'm at peace. It must be terrible to be in as much turmoil as you two are.

Well sure... of course.

You're the embodiment of Nirvana.

LOL! Incredible... .

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

How many threads per day does Silhouette start concerning gay sex?

Something is bad wrong with Sil.

Now honestly, do you actually believe that your silly assed implications is going to prevent someone from contesting degeneracy?

SERIOUSLY?

And I'm going to point out the fact that you are mentally ill.

LOL! I SO adore the sweeter Ironies.

 

[TheOldSchool]

For fucks sake just be good to each other you foolish people. How about you do less judging and more supporting?...

See how it works? Less Judging axiomatically MUST MEAN: More supporting. To not beat their ass, requires that you must endorse their poor behavior.

Understand Reader, this is not the sort of honesty that you'd expect from these would-be 'people'. But their feelin' cocky, all bowed up with their recent win over at the new Federal Supreme Legislature, they feel like their ideas are Popularly supported, forgetting all the BS they laid down to conceal those ideas.

For fucks sake just be good to each other you foolish people. How about you do less judging and more supporting? Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The greatest idea ever presented to humanity, and yet so many do the opposite; especially those who claim to believe in it the most.

So we let close family members marry and let people marry multiple partners.

Amazing how outlandish and controversial you clowns turn "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" into. I'm at peace. It must be terrible to be in as much turmoil as you two are.

Well sure... of course.

You're the embodiment of Nirvana.

LOL! Incredible... .

Do something nice for someone tomorrow. You'll be shocked that it makes you feel good.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Now for those interested in why Christians aren't about to accept this degeneracy, we turn to Paul in his writings to the Romans...

‘God Gave Them Over to a Debased Mind, to Do Those Things Which Are Not Fitting’

"... Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them."

Now that was two thousand years ago... and isn't it AMAZNG how Paul could have been writing that in last weeks Washington Post. Incredible... .

 

[TheOldSchool]

Now for those interested in why Christians aren't about to accept this degeneracy, we turn to Paul in his writings to the Romans...

‘God Gave Them Over to a Debased Mind, to Do Those Things Which Are Not Fitting’

"... Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them."

Which Imam did you hear that from?