Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Then stand up at the SCOTUS hearing pending and say exactly just that...as they're simultaneously considering other forms of marriage not currently legal in all but three states in the US. An amicus brief will do. Maybe I'll start writing one right now come to think of it...
So equal rights in marriage is "not that important" to you? Just checking. Would that be your argument before the Justices, I wonder?Then stand up at the SCOTUS hearing pending and say exactly just that...as they're simultaneously considering other forms of marriage not currently legal in all but three states in the US. An amicus brief will do. Maybe I'll start writing one right now come to think of it...
It's not that important to me...do you know what is supposed to be so bad about polygamy that America says it is illegal?...
So equal rights in marriage is "not that important" to you? Just checking. Would that be your argument before the Justices, I wonder?Then stand up at the SCOTUS hearing pending and say exactly just that...as they're simultaneously considering other forms of marriage not currently legal in all but three states in the US. An amicus brief will do. Maybe I'll start writing one right now come to think of it...
It's not that important to me...do you know what is supposed to be so bad about polygamy that America says it is illegal?...
No, Sir/Ma'am it's not that important for me to become politically active about it...I'm just trying to understand what is so bad about polygamy that it is illegal in America...
No, Sir/Ma'am it's not that important for me to become politically active about it...I'm just trying to understand what is so bad about polygamy that it is illegal in America...
Good, so that would be your argument before the SCOTUS then at the hearing pending on gay etc. marriage? You're being "politically active" just debating the topic here. Why not proclaim it from the rooftops?
Good, so that would be your argument before the SCOTUS then at the hearing pending on gay etc. marriage? You're being "politically active" just debating the topic here. Why not proclaim it from the rooftops?
Sorry, not interested lol.
More than likely: like me, he simply DOES NOT GIVE A SHIT! Polygamy affects me not at all. Gay marriage affects me not at all.
I just find watching your repeated spaz-outs and meltdowns entertaining.
More than likely: like me, he simply DOES NOT GIVE A SHIT! Polygamy affects me not at all. Gay marriage affects me not at all.
I just find watching your repeated spaz-outs and meltdowns entertaining.
It's funny when you hear gays and their lawyers arguing for "gay marriage rights". When the dicey topic [deal-killer legally] comes up about polygamy, these are the first people who will use the argument "polygamists cannot marry because their lifestyle has hints of being unhealthy for kids to be around!". Then they immediately turn around and declare "children's considerations aren't dominant in the gay marriage conversation...this is about gay rights!"It may not affect you, but it does affect others, like children waiting for an adoption. It also affects the likelihood that unmarried people who want to get hitched or want to get divorced.
That's exactly the argument that homos have been making: that the two issues are exactly the same. If you are going to argue that they are different, then your "civil rights" mumbo-jumbo goes out the window.
That's exactly the argument that homos have been making: that the two issues are exactly the same. If you are going to argue that they are different, then your "civil rights" mumbo-jumbo goes out the window.
That's what I've been saying all along bripat. Either your for every single person who wants to marry in the way they see fit, or you're for a restricted definition of marriage. The reply you'll always get about this from gay people is "well I'm for polygamy too, only I'm not going to be vocal about it right now".
That is their way of saying "I know that legally the two are inseparable, but polygamy is a hard sell to the duped housewives we have supporting the LGBT steamroller blindly right now...so we're not going to touch that topic with a 10-foot pole."
But the US Supreme Court will absolutely consider the issue of polygamy when weighing state's rights [Windsor 2013] to define marriage vs federal protection for "anyone who wants to marry".That's exactly the argument that homos have been making: that the two issues are exactly the same. If you are going to argue that they are different, then your "civil rights" mumbo-jumbo goes out the window.
That's what I've been saying all along bripat. Either your for every single person who wants to marry in the way they see fit, or you're for a restricted definition of marriage. The reply you'll always get about this from gay people is "well I'm for polygamy too, only I'm not going to be vocal about it right now".
That is their way of saying "I know that legally the two are inseparable, but polygamy is a hard sell to the duped housewives we have supporting the LGBT steamroller blindly right now...so we're not going to touch that topic with a 10-foot pole."
The real answer is that they don't give a rat's ass about their supposed principle that every consenting adult has a right to marry any other consenting adult. They are getting what they want, and that's as far as they want to take it.
