Opponents in LGBT case agree: It's not about wedding cake

[Silhouette]

Myself- I think that State's may be able to make a convincing argument on why polygamous marriage should be illegal- but if the State's can't- then of course they shouldn't be illegal.

And what, pray tell, would that argument be? That the majority thinks it's bad for kids that might be involved?

 

[Pop23]

It will be interesting to see what the court decides.

If the court agrees with you- of course then anyone can discriminate against Jews or blacks or Mexicans- claiming it is their religious conviction.

Yes. It will be interesting to see the courts discuss the difference between bakers discriminating based on behavior vs doing so about race. Going further, it should be fun to see them finally dissect LGBT etc. as deviant sex addicts. Which is the core of what they are.

Next in opinion I'd like to see a discussion of why polysexuals (polygamists) were omitted from marriage arbitrarily. Because they couldn't have been excluded based on the majority objecting or discriminating....now could they?

Correct, if anyone ever actually took the time to read Marriage Licence laws they would see that there are absolutely zip for what qualifies as a marriage with only arbitrary exceptions.

Those arbitrary exceptions would clearly not withstand a court challenge based on the States Interest in denial of marriage rights.

Well as it stands today, no state can, in the pure interest of Obergefell's judicial-legislation adding brand new protections for deviant sex behaviors to the Constitution, deny polyamorists (polygamists) to marry. You cannot wave a magic wand of discrimination against polygamists when you use a fabricated interpretation of our Constitution's equality-Amendment (14th) to "legalize" other deviant sex behaviors' marriage across the 50 states by power of the 5 Justices who essentially "just said so". A majority-rejected deviant sex behavior practitioner is a majority-rejected deviant sex practitioner. All are welcome under that judicial logic or none are. Who decides which are acceptable and which aren't? 5 Justices on the US Supreme Court? Or the 300 million?

Quite correct

The reason that a couple would wed was because of an obvious historically valid reason. But now, that standard is simply absurd. And since state licence laws make sexual interaction not a requirement, nor love, nor anything that we had historically thought as of reasons to marry, there is only an arbitrary reason to deny members of the same family to marry.

Recent USSC ruling are pretty clear, marriage is simply a financial tool, not much different then forming an S-Corp or LLC.

LOL- and by 'recent USSC ruling' you mean the rulings that you have never actually read.

But you do have a good point- if the State cannot provide a convincing rational on why polygamous marriage should be banned- why should it be?

Clearly you feel that the state can't- so polygamy should be legal.

Myself- I think that State's may be able to make a convincing argument on why polygamous marriage should be illegal- but if the State's can't- then of course they shouldn't be illegal.

Man, that added absolutely nothing ^^^^^^^^

 

[Syriusly]

It will be interesting to see what the court decides.

If the court agrees with you- of course then anyone can discriminate against Jews or blacks or Mexicans- claiming it is their religious conviction.

Next in opinion I'd like to see a discussion of why polysexuals (polygamists) were omitted from marriage arbitrarily. Because they couldn't have been excluded based on the majority objecting or discriminating....now could they?

Of course polygamy was banned because of what the majority thought. In particular this was a barely concealed action of religious intollerance by the Christian majority against Mormons. It wasn't 'arbitrarily'- it was done because Christians found the Mormon religion an affront against Christianity.

Of course there is no law against 'polysexuals' whatever you imagine they are- but there are laws in all 50 states against polygamous marriage.

The question is- do you think polygamous marriage should be banned?

If yes- then why?

If no- then why?

And I will now ask this question every time you bring up Polygamy

 

[Syriusly]

Myself- I think that State's may be able to make a convincing argument on why polygamous marriage should be illegal- but if the State's can't- then of course they shouldn't be illegal.

And what, pray tell, would that argument be? That the majority thinks it's bad for kids that might be involved?

Is that your argument? Do you think that polygamous marriage would be bad for kids?

Why do you think it would be bad for kids?

 

[Syriusly]

It will be interesting to see what the court decides.

If the court agrees with you- of course then anyone can discriminate against Jews or blacks or Mexicans- claiming it is their religious conviction.

Yes. It will be interesting to see the courts discuss the difference between bakers discriminating based on behavior vs doing so about race. Going further, it should be fun to see them finally dissect LGBT etc. as deviant sex addicts. Which is the core of what they are.

Next in opinion I'd like to see a discussion of why polysexuals (polygamists) were omitted from marriage arbitrarily. Because they couldn't have been excluded based on the majority objecting or discriminating....now could they?

Correct, if anyone ever actually took the time to read Marriage Licence laws they would see that there are absolutely zip for what qualifies as a marriage with only arbitrary exceptions.

Those arbitrary exceptions would clearly not withstand a court challenge based on the States Interest in denial of marriage rights.

Well as it stands today, no state can, in the pure interest of Obergefell's judicial-legislation adding brand new protections for deviant sex behaviors to the Constitution, deny polyamorists (polygamists) to marry. You cannot wave a magic wand of discrimination against polygamists when you use a fabricated interpretation of our Constitution's equality-Amendment (14th) to "legalize" other deviant sex behaviors' marriage across the 50 states by power of the 5 Justices who essentially "just said so". A majority-rejected deviant sex behavior practitioner is a majority-rejected deviant sex practitioner. All are welcome under that judicial logic or none are. Who decides which are acceptable and which aren't? 5 Justices on the US Supreme Court? Or the 300 million?

Quite correct

The reason that a couple would wed was because of an obvious historically valid reason. But now, that standard is simply absurd. And since state licence laws make sexual interaction not a requirement, nor love, nor anything that we had historically thought as of reasons to marry, there is only an arbitrary reason to deny members of the same family to marry.

Recent USSC ruling are pretty clear, marriage is simply a financial tool, not much different then forming an S-Corp or LLC.

LOL- and by 'recent USSC ruling' you mean the rulings that you have never actually read.

But you do have a good point- if the State cannot provide a convincing rational on why polygamous marriage should be banned- why should it be?

Clearly you feel that the state can't- so polygamy should be legal.

Myself- I think that State's may be able to make a convincing argument on why polygamous marriage should be illegal- but if the State's can't- then of course they shouldn't be illegal.

Man, that added absolutely nothing ^^^^^^^^

lol I could say that regarding virtually every post you make.

Let me rephrase that for you: "Syriusly whipped my ass and I can't think of a single way to dig myself out of this hole so I will just insult his post"

 

[Pop23]

It will be interesting to see what the court decides.

If the court agrees with you- of course then anyone can discriminate against Jews or blacks or Mexicans- claiming it is their religious conviction.

Yes. It will be interesting to see the courts discuss the difference between bakers discriminating based on behavior vs doing so about race. Going further, it should be fun to see them finally dissect LGBT etc. as deviant sex addicts. Which is the core of what they are.

Next in opinion I'd like to see a discussion of why polysexuals (polygamists) were omitted from marriage arbitrarily. Because they couldn't have been excluded based on the majority objecting or discriminating....now could they?

Correct, if anyone ever actually took the time to read Marriage Licence laws they would see that there are absolutely zip for what qualifies as a marriage with only arbitrary exceptions.

Those arbitrary exceptions would clearly not withstand a court challenge based on the States Interest in denial of marriage rights.

Well as it stands today, no state can, in the pure interest of Obergefell's judicial-legislation adding brand new protections for deviant sex behaviors to the Constitution, deny polyamorists (polygamists) to marry. You cannot wave a magic wand of discrimination against polygamists when you use a fabricated interpretation of our Constitution's equality-Amendment (14th) to "legalize" other deviant sex behaviors' marriage across the 50 states by power of the 5 Justices who essentially "just said so". A majority-rejected deviant sex behavior practitioner is a majority-rejected deviant sex practitioner. All are welcome under that judicial logic or none are. Who decides which are acceptable and which aren't? 5 Justices on the US Supreme Court? Or the 300 million?

Quite correct

The reason that a couple would wed was because of an obvious historically valid reason. But now, that standard is simply absurd. And since state licence laws make sexual interaction not a requirement, nor love, nor anything that we had historically thought as of reasons to marry, there is only an arbitrary reason to deny members of the same family to marry.

Recent USSC ruling are pretty clear, marriage is simply a financial tool, not much different then forming an S-Corp or LLC.

LOL- and by 'recent USSC ruling' you mean the rulings that you have never actually read.

But you do have a good point- if the State cannot provide a convincing rational on why polygamous marriage should be banned- why should it be?

Clearly you feel that the state can't- so polygamy should be legal.

Myself- I think that State's may be able to make a convincing argument on why polygamous marriage should be illegal- but if the State's can't- then of course they shouldn't be illegal.

Man, that added absolutely nothing ^^^^^^^^

lol I could say that regarding virtually every post you make.

Let me rephrase that for you: "Syriusly whipped my ass and I can't think of a single way to dig myself out of this hole so I will just insult his post"

lol, you need serious mental help.

Maybe a Christian church can provide the funding?

 

[Syriusly]

The reason that a couple would wed was because of an obvious historically valid reason. But now, that standard is simply absurd. And since state licence laws make sexual interaction not a requirement, nor love, nor anything that we had historically thought as of reasons to marry, there is only an arbitrary reason to deny members of the same family to marry.

Recent USSC ruling are pretty clear, marriage is simply a financial tool, not much different then forming an S-Corp or LLC.

Even if that was true, the state has to get a benefit from the loss they extend to the marriage contract. .

Actually the State doesn't have to get any benefit for issuing marriage licenses.

But what benefit the State does get is no different than what it gets when an 80 year old couple marries- or two sterile first cousins marry.

 

[Syriusly]

Well as it stands today, no state can, in the pure interest of Obergefell's judicial-legislation adding brand new protections for deviant sex behaviors to the Constitution, deny polyamorists (polygamists) to marry. You cannot wave a magic wand of discrimination against polygamists when you use a fabricated interpretation of our Constitution's equality-Amendment (14th) to "legalize" other deviant sex behaviors' marriage across the 50 states by power of the 5 Justices who essentially "just said so". A majority-rejected deviant sex behavior practitioner is a majority-rejected deviant sex practitioner. All are welcome under that judicial logic or none are. Who decides which are acceptable and which aren't? 5 Justices on the US Supreme Court? Or the 300 million?

Quite correct

The reason that a couple would wed was because of an obvious historically valid reason. But now, that standard is simply absurd. And since state licence laws make sexual interaction not a requirement, nor love, nor anything that we had historically thought as of reasons to marry, there is only an arbitrary reason to deny members of the same family to marry.

Recent USSC ruling are pretty clear, marriage is simply a financial tool, not much different then forming an S-Corp or LLC.

LOL- and by 'recent USSC ruling' you mean the rulings that you have never actually read.

But you do have a good point- if the State cannot provide a convincing rational on why polygamous marriage should be banned- why should it be?

Clearly you feel that the state can't- so polygamy should be legal.

Myself- I think that State's may be able to make a convincing argument on why polygamous marriage should be illegal- but if the State's can't- then of course they shouldn't be illegal.

Man, that added absolutely nothing ^^^^^^^^

lol I could say that regarding virtually every post you make.

Let me rephrase that for you: "Syriusly whipped my ass and I can't think of a single way to dig myself out of this hole so I will just insult his post"

lol, you need serious mental help.

Maybe a Christian church can provide the funding?

lol I could say that regarding virtually every post you make.

Let me rephrase that for you: "Syriusly whipped my ass and I can't think of a single way to dig myself out of this hole so I will just insult his post"

 

[Pop23]

Quite correct

The reason that a couple would wed was because of an obvious historically valid reason. But now, that standard is simply absurd. And since state licence laws make sexual interaction not a requirement, nor love, nor anything that we had historically thought as of reasons to marry, there is only an arbitrary reason to deny members of the same family to marry.

Recent USSC ruling are pretty clear, marriage is simply a financial tool, not much different then forming an S-Corp or LLC.

LOL- and by 'recent USSC ruling' you mean the rulings that you have never actually read.

But you do have a good point- if the State cannot provide a convincing rational on why polygamous marriage should be banned- why should it be?

Clearly you feel that the state can't- so polygamy should be legal.

Myself- I think that State's may be able to make a convincing argument on why polygamous marriage should be illegal- but if the State's can't- then of course they shouldn't be illegal.

Man, that added absolutely nothing ^^^^^^^^

lol I could say that regarding virtually every post you make.

Let me rephrase that for you: "Syriusly whipped my ass and I can't think of a single way to dig myself out of this hole so I will just insult his post"

lol, you need serious mental help.

Maybe a Christian church can provide the funding?

lol I could say that regarding virtually every post you make.

Let me rephrase that for you: "Syriusly whipped my ass and I can't think of a single way to dig myself out of this hole so I will just insult his post"

lol, you need serious mental help.

Maybe a Christian church can provide the funding?

 

[Syriusly]

LOL- and by 'recent USSC ruling' you mean the rulings that you have never actually read.

But you do have a good point- if the State cannot provide a convincing rational on why polygamous marriage should be banned- why should it be?

Clearly you feel that the state can't- so polygamy should be legal.

Myself- I think that State's may be able to make a convincing argument on why polygamous marriage should be illegal- but if the State's can't- then of course they shouldn't be illegal.

Man, that added absolutely nothing ^^^^^^^^

lol I could say that regarding virtually every post you make.

Let me rephrase that for you: "Syriusly whipped my ass and I can't think of a single way to dig myself out of this hole so I will just insult his post"

lol, you need serious mental help.

Maybe a Christian church can provide the funding?

lol I could say that regarding virtually every post you make.

Let me rephrase that for you: "Syriusly whipped my ass and I can't think of a single way to dig myself out of this hole so I will just insult his post"

lol, you need serious mental help.

Maybe a Christian church can provide the funding?

Now you fantasize that your a psychologist?

Let me rephrase that for you: "Syriusly whipped my ass and I can't think of a single way to dig myself out of this hole so I will just insult his post"

 

[Pop23]

Man, that added absolutely nothing ^^^^^^^^

lol I could say that regarding virtually every post you make.

Let me rephrase that for you: "Syriusly whipped my ass and I can't think of a single way to dig myself out of this hole so I will just insult his post"

lol, you need serious mental help.

Maybe a Christian church can provide the funding?

lol I could say that regarding virtually every post you make.

Let me rephrase that for you: "Syriusly whipped my ass and I can't think of a single way to dig myself out of this hole so I will just insult his post"

lol, you need serious mental help.

Maybe a Christian church can provide the funding?

Now you fantasize that your a psychologist?

Let me rephrase that for you: "Syriusly whipped my ass and I can't think of a single way to dig myself out of this hole so I will just insult his post"

Obviously you like the idea of whipping my ass, hell, you like the idea of looking at my ass. Most chicks do, but you make me uncomfortable at even the thought.

So quit your flirting and move along gay wad!

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Let me rephrase that for you: "Syriusly whipped my ass…"

I really don't think that Pop23 is interested in being part of your faggy sadomasochistic sexual fantasies.

 

[Syriusly]

Let me rephrase that for you: "Syriusly whipped my ass…"

I really don't think that Pop23 is interested in being part of your faggy sadomasochistic sexual fantasies.

but you sure do seem fascinated by the idea of a faggy sadomasochistic sexual fantasy......

 

[Syriusly]

lol I could say that regarding virtually every post you make.

Let me rephrase that for you: "Syriusly whipped my ass and I can't think of a single way to dig myself out of this hole so I will just insult his post"

lol, you need serious mental help.

Maybe a Christian church can provide the funding?

lol I could say that regarding virtually every post you make.

Let me rephrase that for you: "Syriusly whipped my ass and I can't think of a single way to dig myself out of this hole so I will just insult his post"

lol, you need serious mental help.

Maybe a Christian church can provide the funding?

Now you fantasize that your a psychologist?

Let me rephrase that for you: "Syriusly whipped my ass and I can't think of a single way to dig myself out of this hole so I will just insult his post"

Obviously you like the idea of whipping my ass, hell, you like the idea of looking at my ass. Most chicks do, but you make me uncomfortable at even the thought.!

Its not that I like the idea of whipping your butt- its just I am amused by how easy it is to whip your butt in a debate- and watch you respond with personal attacks because you can't handle what I posted.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Man, that added absolutely nothing ^^^^^^^^

lol I could say that regarding virtually every post you make.

Let me rephrase that for you: "Syriusly whipped my ass and I can't think of a single way to dig myself out of this hole so I will just insult his post"

lol, you need serious mental help.

Maybe a Christian church can provide the funding?

lol I could say that regarding virtually every post you make.

Let me rephrase that for you: "Syriusly whipped my ass and I can't think of a single way to dig myself out of this hole so I will just insult his post"

lol, you need serious mental help.

Maybe a Christian church can provide the funding?

Now you fantasize that your a psychologist?

Let me rephrase that for you: "Syriusly whipped my ass and I can't think of a single way to dig myself out of this hole so I will just insult his post"

You think entirely too much of yourself. You're constantly claiming victory and thumping your chest.

You're being laughed at

 

[Syriusly]

lol I could say that regarding virtually every post you make.

Let me rephrase that for you: "Syriusly whipped my ass and I can't think of a single way to dig myself out of this hole so I will just insult his post"

lol, you need serious mental help.

Maybe a Christian church can provide the funding?

lol I could say that regarding virtually every post you make.

Let me rephrase that for you: "Syriusly whipped my ass and I can't think of a single way to dig myself out of this hole so I will just insult his post"

lol, you need serious mental help.

Maybe a Christian church can provide the funding?

Now you fantasize that your a psychologist?

Let me rephrase that for you: "Syriusly whipped my ass and I can't think of a single way to dig myself out of this hole so I will just insult his post"

You think entirely too much of yourself. You're constantly claiming victory and thumping your chest.

You're being laughed at

LOL- being laughed at by a loon by you is a compliment.