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

[Skylar]

Now you've spent the best part of the last several years citing legal precedent which was exclusively the subject of race... demanding that such was speaking to the sexuality of Degeneracy.

No one has claimed that race is 'sexual deviancy'. You're refuting an argument that no one has made.

That's a fallacy of logic called a 'strawman'. If your argument had merit, it wouldn't need to be based on fallacies.

Now if Degeneracy is a sexuality, what pray tell provides that polyamory is not also 'sexuality'?

Who says that 'polyandry' is a sexual orientation?

 

[Skylar]

Yes... Your subjective opinion accurately predicted the outcome. And my Subjective Opinion was wrong.

Not just the outcome. But most of the details too. What precedent would be cited, what principles the ruling would be based on, what amendments would be cited, who would write the ruling, what the split would be, pretty much everything.

And you're attributing that all to random chance?

That seems a little....unlikely.

 

[Silhouette]

Now you've spent the best part of the last several years citing legal precedent which was exclusively the subject of race... demanding that such was speaking to the sexuality of Degeneracy.

No one has claimed that race is 'sexual deviancy'. You're refuting an argument that no one has made.

That's a fallacy of logic called a 'strawman'. If your argument had merit, it wouldn't need to be based on fallacies.

Now if Degeneracy is a sexuality, what pray tell provides that polyamory is not also 'sexuality'?

Who says that 'polyandry' is a sexual orientation?

Constantly...and I mean CONSTANTLY your ilk flaunts the false premise that "homosexuality = race". You did that on purpose to sway the Court into getting your way. Now that you have your way and the ink isn't even dry, you duplicitous swine are walking back and admitting homosexuality "isn't equal to race".

So if homosexuality is today what it has always been: a set of behaviors having to do with one's sexual kinks, then how can you discriminate against polygamists who are also consenting and exercising their sexual kinks?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

No one has claimed that race is 'sexual deviancy'. You're refuting an argument that no one has made.

In truth, you have made the claim through incessant implication, citing marriage precedent which had absolutely NO RELEVANCE TO SEXUALITY, AS BEING WHOLLY RELEVANT TO SEXUALITY... and you have done so THOUSANDS OF TIMES.

The Readers of this board have witnessed it each and every time, thus the point is not even REMOTELY DEBATABLE.

 

[Skylar]

No one has claimed that race is 'sexual deviancy'. You're refuting an argument that no one has made.

In truth, you have made the claim through incessant implication, citing marriage precedent which had absolutely NO RELEVANCE TO SEXUALITY, AS BEING WHOLLY RELEVANT TO SEXUALITY... and you have done so THOUSANDS OF TIMES.

'Implication', huh? Where you assume you know what I meant....citing yourself. But oddly, not citing me. So far, the only person who has said that race is sexual deviancy is you citing yourself.

Which is objectively meaningless. Ah, my little relativist....keep swinging at those strawmen.

I have argued that cases involving racial discrimination are relevant to cases involving discrimination against gays. As they demonstrate the same principles of illegal discrimination and abrogation of rights.

And you can quote me.

The Readers of this board have witnessed it each and every time, thus the point is not even REMOTELY DEBATABLE.

And yet here we are debating it. With me the world's leading expert on my own argument.

 

[Skylar]

Now you've spent the best part of the last several years citing legal precedent which was exclusively the subject of race... demanding that such was speaking to the sexuality of Degeneracy.

No one has claimed that race is 'sexual deviancy'. You're refuting an argument that no one has made.

That's a fallacy of logic called a 'strawman'. If your argument had merit, it wouldn't need to be based on fallacies.

Now if Degeneracy is a sexuality, what pray tell provides that polyamory is not also 'sexuality'?

Who says that 'polyandry' is a sexual orientation?

Constantly...and I mean CONSTANTLY your ilk flaunts the false premise that "homosexuality = race". You did that on purpose to sway the Court into getting your way.

Nope. The only one who has argued the 'homosexuality = race' nonsense is you and yours. Its one of your favorite strawmen.

I have argued that cases involving racial discrimination are relevant to cases involving discrimination against gays. As they demonstrate the same principles of illegal discrimination and abrogation of rights. With the courts coming to the same conclusion I did.

Laughing....exactly as I told you they would, Sil. Down to the name of the case and the principles they would cite.

But you thought you knew better. How'd that work out for you?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Yes... Your subjective opinion accurately predicted the outcome. And my Subjective Opinion was wrong.

Not just the outcome. But most of the details too. What precedent would be cited, what principles the ruling would be based on, what amendments would be cited, who would write the ruling, what the split would be, pretty much everything.

And you're attributing that all to random chance?

That seems a little....unlikely.

So you're saying that what happened was unlikely?

Well, that's brilliant, given that your entire premise leading to that conclusion is that such was inevitable.

The "Ruling" was based upon a simple vote of the majority.

Reality provides that there was is no legal precedent leading up to that illicit vote; establishing that same gender degenerates are entitled to marry, as there is not a word which sustains such to be found anywhere in US Jurisprudence prior to the vote by the Supreme Legislature that decrees such.

In fact, there is no legal basis on which to set such a ruling.

The result would have been precisely the same if Kennedy had decreed that the majority found that The Fairies of the Night required it to be such and they had come to understand such through the color of Ginsburg's toe jam... .

 

[Syriusly]

HOW IS POLYGAMOUS MARRIAGE ILLEGAL???

Because the law was passed making it illegal.

And has never been revoked or overturned.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

When they do, come find us. Until then, you're quite literally offering us your imagination as evidence.

....As relativists are wot to do.

What is "wot"?

Do you or do you not believe in marriage equality? And if yes, how does that exclude polygamists, exactly? We are talking about one sexual orientation (homosexuality) vs another (polyamory). The legal differences please?

Polyamory isn't a sexual orientation. Ending that gibberish.

Just as Sexual Deviancy is not Race.

Now you've spent the best part of the last several years citing legal precedent which was exclusively the subject of race... demanding that such was speaking to the sexuality of Degeneracy.

Now if Degeneracy is a sexuality, what pray tell provides that polyamory is not also 'sexuality'?

Does it not seek to establish that a man is attracted sexually to multiple individuals and that the attraction itself deems the legal licensing of such to be recognized by the Government? And would your own reasoning not require that where the sexual degeneracy of homosexuality is licensed, that to not license the other kinks is a definitive indication of inequity before the law?

Explain your position in specific and objective terms... .

Nor has anyone claimed that it was. The stuffing from your strawmen is getting everywhere.

Reader, in terms of Concession, IT DOES NOT GET ANY BETTER THAN THIS: The above cited concession is Skylar retracting nearly every word that it has published on this site for roughly the last three years... .

Good for you Skylar and thank you for your confession that you've spent YEARS LYING TO THE READERS OF THIS BOARD, wherein you implied that rulings which were relevant ONLY to matters of RACE, were inalterably relevant to matters of CHOICES MADE REGARDING SEXUAL BEHAVIOR, OKA: SEXUALITY.

It was a long time coming Reader... but THAT is what only objective reason can do. It provides constant pressure, which over time and, through the enormous force common to truth, it shatters the pretenses of Relativism into so many faceted shards that it is impossible for the Relativist to piece them back together.

Until inevitably it MUST CONFESS THAT WHAT IT WAS CLAIMING TO BE TRUTH: IS NOT TRUE.

Skylar:
YOUR CONCESSION IS DULY NOTED AND SUMMARILY ACCEPTED!​

 

[Skylar]

Yes... Your subjective opinion accurately predicted the outcome. And my Subjective Opinion was wrong.

Not just the outcome. But most of the details too. What precedent would be cited, what principles the ruling would be based on, what amendments would be cited, who would write the ruling, what the split would be, pretty much everything.

And you're attributing that all to random chance?

That seems a little....unlikely.

So you're saying that what happened was unlikely?

Wow. Your reading comprehension is awful. No wonder you had no idea what you were talking about regarding the Obergefell ruling.

Back in reality, I'm saying that my prediction of all of those very specific details of the Obergefell ruling being a product of random chance seems unlikely.

Not just the outcome, but the cases cited AND the split AND the author, AND the precedent AND the legal principles AND the amendments cited?

How was it that I was able to glean all of that. And you were able to glean none of it?

 

[Syriusly]

When they do, come find us. Until then, you're quite literally offering us your imagination as evidence.

....As relativists are wot to do.

What is "wot"?

Do you or do you not believe in marriage equality?

Yes.

If you want to pursue your polygamous marriage you have the same right to pursue your dream as every gay couple who wanted to get married did.

You can ask the legislature to change the law- or you can go to court.

You just have to overcome the States compelling interest in prohibiting polygamous marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

Now you've spent the best part of the last several years citing legal precedent which was exclusively the subject of race... demanding that such was speaking to the sexuality of Degeneracy.

No one has claimed that race is 'sexual deviancy'. You're refuting an argument that no one has made.

That's a fallacy of logic called a 'strawman'. If your argument had merit, it wouldn't need to be based on fallacies.

Now if Degeneracy is a sexuality, what pray tell provides that polyamory is not also 'sexuality'?

Who says that 'polyandry' is a sexual orientation?

Constantly...and I mean CONSTANTLY your ilk flaunts the false premise that "homosexuality = race".

No- that is just another of your lies.

Homosexuality is not race is not religion is not national origin is not gender.

None are the same- yet people have faced discrimination based upon those labels in every group.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

More accurately, I've drawn the close affiliation between YOUR subjective opinion and error.

Yes you did... You're correct. I departed from objective reasoning and as reason requires, in so doing I opened myself up to the humiliation of error.

Thank you for pointing out the irrepressible affiliation between subjectivism and error.

More accurately, I've pointed out the affiliation of your subjective opinion and error.

Yes... Your subjective opinion accurately predicted the outcome. And my Subjective Opinion was wrong.

Your subjective opinion enjoying the heady principle that 5 out of 9 is a majority and 5 people who lack the strength of character to adhere to their sacred oaths, having sworn their sacred word, in evasion... as a means to be seated on the Supreme Court, used nothing beyond their VOTE to decree LEGISLATIVELY... that what is otherwise not true, is true.

Thus proving once again the adage born of simple probability:

Even a blind nut, finds a squirrel now and then.

Your Concession is AGAIN: Duly Noted and Summarily ACCEPTED!​

 

[Skylar]

When they do, come find us. Until then, you're quite literally offering us your imagination as evidence.

....As relativists are wot to do.

What is "wot"?

Do you or do you not believe in marriage equality? And if yes, how does that exclude polygamists, exactly? We are talking about one sexual orientation (homosexuality) vs another (polyamory). The legal differences please?

Polyamory isn't a sexual orientation. Ending that gibberish.

Just as Sexual Deviancy is not Race.

Now you've spent the best part of the last several years citing legal precedent which was exclusively the subject of race... demanding that such was speaking to the sexuality of Degeneracy.

Now if Degeneracy is a sexuality, what pray tell provides that polyamory is not also 'sexuality'?

Does it not seek to establish that a man is attracted sexually to multiple individuals and that the attraction itself deems the legal licensing of such to be recognized by the Government? And would your own reasoning not require that where the sexual degeneracy of homosexuality is licensed, that to not license the other kinks is a definitive indication of inequity before the law?

Explain your position in specific and objective terms... .

Nor has anyone claimed that it was. The stuffing from your strawmen is getting everywhere.

Reader, in terms of Concession, IT DOES NOT GET ANY BETTER THAN THIS: The above cited concession is Skylar retracting nearly every word that it has published on this site for roughly the last three years... .

I've only been here for one year. You're just making this shit up as you go along.

And show me one time I've said that race is 'sexual deviancy'. You can't. As you've hallucinated all of it. Including those extra two years of posting that never happened.

I have argued that cases involving racial discrimination are relevant to cases involving discrimination against gays. As they demonstrate the same principles of illegal discrimination and abrogation of rights.

And you can quote me. You won't, as youv'e already doubled down on your strawmen. But the offer is still there nonetheless.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Nope. The only one who has argued the 'homosexuality = race' nonsense is you and yours.

Ok... this is easily sorted out by your simply providing for the board, any Federal Statute which provides for people of the same gender to be suitable for marriage, prior to the simple vote by the newly established Supreme Legislature, which decrees such.

Reader, Skylar will now most likely ignore this challenge, because the only precedent she can cite is that which she has cited Ad nauseam for YEARS... which is of course rulings which are relevant PURELY, WHOLLY SOLELY AND EXCLUSIVELY TO MATTERS OF PEOPLE OF DISTINCT RACE BEING MARRIED.

Which of course is Skylar claiming that RACE is SYNONYMOUS WITH DEGENERACY.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

HOW IS POLYGAMOUS MARRIAGE ILLEGAL???

Because the law was passed making it illegal.

And has never been revoked or overturned.

ROFLMNAO!

So... The Cases which YOU CITE as providing for Race to be irrelevant in applying for a license to Marry, which you claim also required that sexuality be irrelevant regarding Marriage, making law that forbid same genders from marrying to be "ILLEGAL"... have NO BEARING on people who want to marry more than what the Natural Standard of Marriage limits to TWO... THEREFORE THOSE LAWS ARE STILL FIRMLY ENTRENCHED IN LEGAL BEDROCK?

So the natural standards of marriage is only critical in terms of the NUMBER of people who are married... and the sexuality of those people is absolutely irrelevant, because of the legal precedence regarding race?

WOW~

I KNEW THAT THE RATIONALIZATIONS THAT SOUGHT TO JUSTIFY THAT VOTE WOULD BE SWEET!

BUT I HAD NO IDEA HOW SWEET THEY WOULD ACTUALLY BE!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I've only been here for one year.

LOL! Well you have a way of making time stretch... like a boil on the ass.

And show me one time I've said that race is 'sexual deviancy'.

ROFLMNAO! Going pedantic?

LMAO! Adorable.

Your concession is DULY NOTED AND SUMMARILY ACCEPTED.

Reader, For your edification, below is the actual post to which Skylar conceded:

"Reader, in terms of Concession, IT DOES NOT GET ANY BETTER THAN THIS: The above cited concession is Skylar retracting nearly every word that it has published on this site for roughly the last three years... .

Good for you Skylar and thank you for your confession that you've spent YEARS LYING TO THE READERS OF THIS BOARD, wherein you implied that rulings which were relevant ONLY to matters of RACE, were inalterably relevant to matters of CHOICES MADE REGARDING SEXUAL BEHAVIOR, OKA: SEXUALITY.

It was a long time coming Reader... but THAT is what only objective reason can do. It provides constant pressure, which over time and, through the enormous force common to truth, it shatters the pretenses of Relativism into so many faceted shards that it is impossible for the Relativist to piece them back together.

Until inevitably it MUST CONFESS THAT WHAT IT WAS CLAIMING TO BE TRUTH: IS NOT TRUE.

Skylar:
YOUR CONCESSION IS DULY NOTED AND SUMMARILY ACCEPTED!"​

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

In truth ... you have done so THOUSANDS OF TIMES.

I have argued that cases involving racial discrimination are relevant to cases involving discrimination against gays.[OKA: SEXUAL DEVIANTS]

Your Concession is Duly Noted and Summarily Accepted.​

The Readers of this board have witnessed it each and every time, thus the point is not even REMOTELY DEBATABLE.

And yet here we are debating it. With me the world's leading expert on my own argument.

ROFLMNAO!

We're not debating anything. This is simply ME, reminding you of what you have said.

 

[Skylar]

Ok... this is easily sorted out by your simply providing for the board, any Federal Statute which provides for people of the same gender to be suitable for marriage, prior to the simple vote by the newly established Supreme Legislature, which decrees such.

Or by citing the ruling that affirmed that same sex marriage bans are unconstitutional. Of which there are two.

The first is Windsor v. US, in which federal same sex marriage bans were overturned.

The second is Obergefell v. Hodges in which state same sex marriage bans were overturned.

I'll happily provide the links to each case. But we both know you won't read them.

Reader, Skylar will now most likely ignore this challenge, because the only precedent she can cite is that which she has cited Ad nauseam for YEARS... which is of course rulings which are relevant PURELY, WHOLLY SOLELY AND EXCLUSIVELY TO MATTERS OF PEOPLE OF DISTINCT RACE BEING MARRIED.

I'll most likely point out that that federal statute recognizing that same sex marriage bans are unconstitutional isn't necessary for the Supreme Court to overturn such bans on the basis that they violate the constitution.

Judicial Review allows the courts the review laws passed by the States or Federal governments and weigh them against the constitution. If they violate constitutional guarantees, they are invalid.

And that exact constitutional process was used in both the Windsor and Obergefell ruling.

Which of course is Skylar claiming that RACE is SYNONYMOUS WITH DEGENERACY.

Nope. I've never made any such claim. That would be you citing you, pretending to be me. And that has never worked out for you.

Back in reality, I have argued that cases involving racial discrimination are relevant to cases involving discrimination against gays. As they demonstrate the same principles of illegal discrimination and abrogation of rights.

And the courts came to the same conclusions.

Now how was I able to so accurately predict the court's ruling in Obergefell....while you got every detail wrong?

 

[Skylar]

In truth ... you have done so THOUSANDS OF TIMES.

I have argued that cases involving racial discrimination are relevant to cases involving discrimination against gays.[OKA: SEXUAL DEVIANTS]

This is my argument:

Cases involving racial discrimination are relevant to cases involving discrimination against gays. As they demonstrate the same principles of illegal discrimination and abrogation of rights.

This is your strawman:

Race equal sexual deviancy.

I'm supremely confident that any rational person reading the two can easily tell the difference. And just as confident that you cannot.