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

[Where_r_my_Keys]

What you're not quite bright enough to understand is that your right to marry is limited to your means to bear the responsibilities INTRINSIC TO THAT RIGHT.

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman. Thus your right to marry is sustained ONLY by your responsibility to apply for such, with a person whose gender is distinct from your own.

The Right to own and effectively use a firearm in defense of your life and the lives of those around you, and the means to exercise your God-given Rights, is sustained by your responsibility to demonstrate your worthiness of trust, to not use that firearm to the detriment of the means of others to exercise their own rights.

This is what every child who went to school in the before the 1990s was taught and knows it instinctively... your ignorance of those self-evident facts, does not alter those facts.

You have a 'god given right' to own a gun?

When did that happen?

That happened when my Creator endowed my life, to me; with that life, the right to pursue the fulfillment of that life and the responsibility to defend it from those who would take my life and the means to exercise my rights.

So God gave you the right to own an F-16 in order to defend your rights?

If I need an F-16 to defend my rights, then yes... you betcha.

What you do not seem to be capable of understanding is that I am bound to sacred duty to ERASE THOSE WHO THREATEN MY MEANS TO EXERCISE MY RIGHTS.

Do you understand that? I am OBLIGATED TO DEFEND MY MEANS TO EXERCISE MY RIGHTS, by destroying those who seek to prevent me from doing so.

So you think you have the right to kill anyone you want to.

LOL! No scamp... I am an American.

Which means that I have a responsibility to NOT kill people... even when they're a profound inconvenience to me. Therefore, I'm not a Leftist.

So, that's what is probably confusing you.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Again Reader, the key to defeating Leftists in debate rests upon two fundamental principles:

1- Find a Leftist.

2- Get them to SPEAK!

 

[Skylar]

Why do you spam the board with your nonsense?

Syriusly spams with her friends because she doesn't want to answer how the Court can dicipher how one sexual orientation gets special rights and freedom from majority/state regulation, while another doesn't (polyamory).

The only one saying that the Courts must treat homosexuality the same way as polyandry....is you. Citing yourself. And as the Obergefell ruling demonstrates, you have no idea what you're talking about. You made all sorts of assertions of what the court 'must do' and how they 'must' affirm your pseudo-legal assertions regarding that ruling.

So....how'd that work out for you?

OH! So you're saying that there is NOT a Fundamental Right to Marry?
.)

We have a right to marry- as we have a right to own guns.

Yet states have laws forbidding convicted felons of owning guns.

Are you saying we have no right to own guns?

What you're not quite bright enough to understand is that your right to marry is limited to your means to bear the responsibilities INTRINSIC TO THAT RIGHT.

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman. Thus your right to marry is sustained ONLY by your responsibility to apply for such, with a person whose gender is distinct from your own.

Except when it isn't. Like when any same sex couple applies for a marriage license in any state in the union. Including yours, Keyes. Your county would issue a same couple a marriage license in explicit contradiction of your pseudo-legal gibberish.

Seems your version of the right to marry doesn't have much to do with the law, our constitution or reality. But then, what among your drivel ever does?

 

[Skylar]

What you do not seem to be capable of understanding is that I am bound to sacred duty to ERASE THOSE WHO THREATEN MY MEANS TO EXERCISE MY RIGHTS.

......

Do you understand that? I am OBLIGATED TO DEFEND MY MEANS TO EXERCISE MY RIGHTS, by destroying those who seek to prevent me from doing so.

Obviously you're not. As you've already claimed that includes all Leftists, homosexuals, and most democrats. Yet you haven't destroyed anyone. Or erased anyone. Per your own reasoning there tens of millions of individuals that meet your standards for destruction.

And yet every single one of them is gloriously safe from the likes of you.

Perhaps 'obligated' doesn't mean what you think it means. As you seem to equate 'obligated' with doing jack shit.

This is a very serious responsibility... which requires absolute certainty.

Obviously it isn't. As you're not doing anything you insist you're obligated to do. But you know what you're exceptionally good at? Giving us excuses why you won't.

In all the reasons why you won't be doing anything, you've got a doctorate wrapped in bacon and a black belt. Here's a choice move of chickenshit-jitsu:

Thus the pause between the attempt to usurp the right and the destruction of the usurper. To do so, one must have a valid moral justification, thus one must know through valid evidence and upon sound reasoning, that the effort to usurp is deliberate and having effected every available potential alternative remedy, there is no means to sustain the means to exercise one's rights, except for the destruction of the usurper(s).

You've posited that a 'valid moral justification' for all sorts of truly horrible things.......is that someone merely be gay. I believe you were the one who went on and on about the 'responsibility to eradicate homosexuals'. Or a 'leftist'. You've waxed eloquent about your insane murder fantasies about 'leftists', telling us exactly how they'd be murdered, how their heads would be removed, how they would be put on pikes. Your murder fantasies sound like an ISIS recruiting video.

No thank you.

 

[Skylar]

No Skylar, Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

We know this because Nature designed the human species with two distinct, but complementing genders. Each respectively DESIGNED to JOIN WITH THE OTHER... forming from two distinct bodies, one sustainable body; which I'm sure that even a person of your starkly limited intellectual means DEFINES MARRIAGE.

And by 'we', you mean you and your 'reader'? That voice in your head that you keep talking to?

Alas, 'ya'll' have a several small problems.. First, marriage doesn't exist anywhere but in human societies. We invented it. And as its inventors, marriage is what we say it is. In our society, it includes same sex couples. In every state of the union, including yours.

Although I think I see where you got confused. What you're describing is fucking. Fucking and marriage aren't the same thing. You might not be able to tell the difference. But thankfully both the law and any rational person could.

Now, Skylar is a professed homosexual.

Really? I don't believe I've ever 'professed' to be 'homosexual'. If you believe I have, by all means quote me. You'll find that you're just quoting yourself pretending to be me.

The part that's telling though....is that you can't tell the difference between the voices in your head and actual people in the real world. You genuinely think that if you imagine someone saying something.....that they actually said it.

That's not well.

 

[Skylar]

Of course you can- you are Pop- who will not take a stand on anything- just take cheap Pop shots.

You are 'against polygamy' but cannot articulate a reason why you are 'against' polygamy if the women were all sterile.
You are 'against sibling marriage- but cannot articulate a reason why you would be against a sterile brother marrying his sister.

Here is your chance-

• articulate specifically why you oppose polygamous marriage- if its based upon procreation then let us know whether you are okay with polygamous marriage if the members are unable to reproduce together.
• articulate specifically why you oppose sibling marriage- if its based upon procreation then let us know whether you are okay with sibling marriage as long as one of the siblings is sterile.

Allow me to help.

Ya see scamp, Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Or one man and one man. Or one woman and one woman.

In every State. And there's not a thing you can do about it.

See how that works?

LOL!

No Skylar, Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

We know this .

Because that is what the voices in your head tell you.

Yes, that is what God tells me.

'God' is the one telling you to 'eradicate homosexuals' and wage your imaginary 'civil war'?

Yeah, I don't that's god. That's just you and your own .desires to hurt people

 

[Skylar]

Why do you spam the board with your nonsense?

Syriusly spams with her friends because she doesn't want to answer how the Court can dicipher how one sexual orientation gets special rights and freedom from majority/state regulation, while another doesn't (polyamory).

The only one saying that the Courts must treat homosexuality the same way as polyandry....is you. Citing yourself. And as the Obergefell ruling demonstrates, you have no idea what you're talking about. You made all sorts of assertions of what the court 'must do' and how they 'must' affirm your pseudo-legal assertions regarding that ruling.

So....how'd that work out for you?

OH! So you're saying that there is NOT a Fundamental Right to Marry?

Can you quote me saying that? Because I'm pretty sure that's you citing yourself pretending to be me. While flattering, that isn't the same thing, is it?

 

[Syriusly]

You have a 'god given right' to own a gun?

When did that happen?

That happened when my Creator endowed my life, to me; with that life, the right to pursue the fulfillment of that life and the responsibility to defend it from those who would take my life and the means to exercise my rights.

So God gave you the right to own an F-16 in order to defend your rights?

If I need an F-16 to defend my rights, then yes... you betcha.

What you do not seem to be capable of understanding is that I am bound to sacred duty to ERASE THOSE WHO THREATEN MY MEANS TO EXERCISE MY RIGHTS.

Do you understand that? I am OBLIGATED TO DEFEND MY MEANS TO EXERCISE MY RIGHTS, by destroying those who seek to prevent me from doing so.

So you think you have the right to kill anyone you want to.

LOL! No scamp... I am an American.

Which means that I have a responsibility to NOT kill people... even when they're a profound inconvenience to me. Therefore, I'm not a Leftist.

So, that's what is probably confusing you.

So how do you intend to ERASE Americans- without killing them?

What you do not seem to be capable of understanding is that I am bound to sacred duty to ERASE THOSE WHO THREATEN MY MEANS TO EXERCISE MY RIGHTS

Perhaps you think you can just twitch your nose?

Or ask God to erase them?

 

[Silhouette]

So how do you intend to ERASE Americans- without killing them?

What you do not seem to be capable of understanding is that I am bound to sacred duty to ERASE THOSE WHO THREATEN MY MEANS TO EXERCISE MY RIGHTS

Perhaps you think you can just twitch your nose?

Or ask God to erase them?

Well whaddya know? We've veered off topic again. By accident or design?..

In case the serial spammers Skylar and Syriusly have forgotten, this thread is about who decides polygamy as the Brown's (and other) case makes it's way up the appeals ladder?

 

[Skylar]

So how do you intend to ERASE Americans- without killing them?

What you do not seem to be capable of understanding is that I am bound to sacred duty to ERASE THOSE WHO THREATEN MY MEANS TO EXERCISE MY RIGHTS

Perhaps you think you can just twitch your nose?

Or ask God to erase them?

Well whaddya know? We've veered off topic again. By accident or design?..

In case the serial spammers Skylar and Syriusly have forgotten, this thread is about who decides polygamy as the Brown's (and other) case makes it's way up the appeals ladder?

SIl, you wander off topic all the time. You don't get to tell anyone what their allowed to discuss.

 

[Silhouette]

Well whaddya know? We've veered off topic again. By accident or design?..
In case the serial spammers Skylar and Syriusly have forgotten, this thread is about who decides polygamy as the Brown's (and other) case makes it's way up the appeals ladder?

SIl, you wander off topic all the time. You don't get to tell anyone what their allowed to discuss.

So Skylar, is that code for you don't want to talk about who is going to decide the Brown's polygamy case? States or SCOTUS? C'mon Mr. Legal expert down to the dotted i-s and crossed t-s. Don't be shy now! Give us your expert opinion and detailed dissertation.

 

[Syriusly]

So how do you intend to ERASE Americans- without killing them?

What you do not seem to be capable of understanding is that I am bound to sacred duty to ERASE THOSE WHO THREATEN MY MEANS TO EXERCISE MY RIGHTS

Perhaps you think you can just twitch your nose?

Or ask God to erase them?

Well whaddya know? We've veered off topic again. By accident or design?..

In case the serial spammers Skylar and Syriusly have forgotten, this thread is about who decides polygamy as the Brown's (and other) case makes it's way up the appeals ladder?

Polygamous marriage is illegal.

Any American can challenge such a law either legislatively or legally.

If they challenge it through the courts, the courts decide.

Like every other legal case.

Even you should be able to understand that.

 

[Silhouette]

Polygamous marriage is illegal.

Any American can challenge such a law either legislatively or legally.

whoooooooa...wait...hold on...WHAT???

June 26, 2015 the marriage equality Ruling came down on behalf of consenting adults wanting to marry. What makes one sexual orientation (homosexuality) more legally dominant than another (polyamory)?

In Utah, polygamy was decriminalized. So it's not illegal there. And they can't marry...why again was that? Your reasons Syriusly?

 

[Syriusly]

Polygamous marriage is illegal.

Any American can challenge such a law either legislatively or legally.

whoooooooa...wait...hold on...WHAT???

June 26, 2015 the marriage equality Ruling came down on behalf of consenting adults wanting to marry. What makes one sexual orientation (homosexuality) more legally dominant than another (polyamory)?

In Utah, polygamy was decriminalized. So it's not illegal there. And they can't marry...why again was that? Your reasons Syriusly?

What part of my post was too complicated for you Silhouette? Do I need to type slower?

Polygamous marriage is illegal.

Any American can challenge such a law either legislatively or legally.

If they challenge it through the courts, the courts decide.

Like every other legal case.

Even you should be able to understand that.

 

[Silhouette]

HOW IS POLYGAMOUS MARRIAGE ILLEGAL???

Were you petitioning for marriage equality this last year or marriage exclusivity? Because when the public was being asked their opinion on this, you were selling your product as "marriage equality". Now some orientations are not equal? Who decides that? You? Utah decided polygamy isn't illegal anymore. Are you more superior than Utah?

 

[Skylar]

Well whaddya know? We've veered off topic again. By accident or design?..
In case the serial spammers Skylar and Syriusly have forgotten, this thread is about who decides polygamy as the Brown's (and other) case makes it's way up the appeals ladder?

SIl, you wander off topic all the time. You don't get to tell anyone what their allowed to discuss.

So Skylar, is that code for you don't want to talk about who is going to decide the Brown's polygamy case? States or SCOTUS? C'mon Mr. Legal expert down to the dotted i-s and crossed t-s. Don't be shy now! Give us your expert opinion and detailed dissertation.

That's code for me telling you that you go off topic all the time. And you don't get to tell anyone else what they're allowed to post.

 

[Skylar]

Were you petitioning for marriage equality this last year or marriage exclusivity? Because when the public was being asked their opinion on this, you were selling your product as "marriage equality". Now some orientations are not equal? Who decides that? You? Utah decided polygamy isn't illegal anymore.

No, they didn't. They decided cohabitation wasn't polygamy. Polygamy is still quite illegal in Utah.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

... Your county would issue a same couple a marriage license in explicit contradiction of your pseudo-legal gibberish.

If the newly formed "SUPREME LEGISLATURE!" so decreed... my State/County might also issue them a License to Practice Medicine, or to re-build the electrical grid.

That would however not render them as suitable, competent, or true examples of Doctors or Electrical Engineers.

They would simply be people who are fraudulently participating in matters for which they are not suited; thus are members within an institution, in which they otherwise have no right to be.

And THAT is the REALITY which sets distinction between ACTUAL "RIGHT" and that of the "Civil" variety, which imparts the foolishness that 'The State' is capable of providing "RIGHT".

And because you're incapable of following the math... that is demonstrated in the immutable certainty that DOCTORS are those who have mastered the philosophy and methods used to practice medicine... as Electrical Engineers are those who have Mastered the Science which establishes the safe practices intrinsic in Electrical Engineering and it is ONLY THROUGH THAT, where one is RIGHTFULLY entitled to be LICENSED as such.

And IT IS UPON THAT PRINCIPLE, that the STATE'S INTERESTS RESTS IN PROVIDING SUCH PEOPLE THE LICENSE... .

Where the State merely DECREES that anyone can be a Doctor or an Electrical Engineer, they have therein rendered the LICENSE OF SUCH: MEANINGLESS!

Which is why, in keeping with the topic of this discussion, the DECISION regarding the Licensing of Polygamy, has already been settled, as the newly established SUPREME LEGISLATURE... has rendered Marriage to be MEANINGLESS.

But hey... in fairness to you; if you were not an imbecile mired in the starkly limited intellectual means of the lowly Relativist, you would have known that.

 

[Skylar]

... Your county would issue a same couple a marriage license in explicit contradiction of your pseudo-legal gibberish.

If the newly formed "SUPREME LEGISLATURE!" so decreed... my State/County might also issue them a License to Practice Medicine, or to re-build the electrical grid.

By your own admission same sex couples can (and almost certainly do) have marriage certificates issued by your County, your State. And those marriages are as valid as any hetero couples under the law.

Exactly as I told you it would be. As marriage is what we say it is, as we invented it.

For someone who keeps babbling about 'objectivity' and 'reality', the track record of your predictions is essentially one of perfect failure. Demonstrating elegantly how little your subjective opinion has with the world the rest of us live in.

They would simply be people who are fraudulently participating in matters for which they are not suited; thus are members within an institution, in which they otherwise have no right to be.

You say gays have no right to marriage. The Supreme Court says they do.

Guess who your local County office is going to take seriously. I'll give you a hint: its not you.

Get used to the idea. As you are gloriously irrelevant to anyone else's marriage.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Were you petitioning for marriage equality this last year or marriage exclusivity? Because when the public was being asked their opinion on this, you were selling your product as "marriage equality". Now some orientations are not equal? Who decides that? You? Utah decided polygamy isn't illegal anymore.

No, they didn't. They decided cohabitation wasn't polygamy. Polygamy is still quite illegal in Utah.

Yes... and it is quite the same with degenerates who seek to co-habitate with one another, playing house in the pretense of Marriage.

The newly formed "SUPREME LEGISLATURE!" merely err'd in what they can decide and what they cannot. People of the same gender are no more capable of marriage than is a monkey capable of creating a grape.

ROFLMNAO! And you... BOUGHT IT!