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

[Skylar]

I've only been here for one year.

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

You're only off by a factor of 3. Its not like you have the slightest clue what you're talking about. Nor does anyone expect you to.

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.

That's not a quote me of saying that race is sexual deviancy. That's an excuse for why you can't.

Now how did I know that was coming?

 

[Silhouette]

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?

So why exactly don't polyamorous-orientations enjoy those same rights.... You didn't say.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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?

So why exactly don't polyamorous-orientations enjoy those same rights.... You didn't say.

And it's not going to say...

Because to say is to expose the BIG LIE!

Which is that "Equal Protection Under the Law"... was and remains irrelevant to the Advocacy to Nomalize Degeneracy.

The Federal Licensing of Degeneracy merely paved the way for homosexuals to pursue children for sexual gratification... Legally.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

That is your straw reasoning. You assert that because people discriminate against people of race and THAT is immoral, thus it is illegal, that it should also be illegal for people to discriminate against degenerates.

When in truth, it is a good thing to discriminate against degenerates because degeneracy runs counter to viability. (Ya see scamp, that's what degeneracy means) and the fact is that homosexuality is the presentation of mental disorder. And Mental Disorder is to be DISCOURAGED, NOT encouraged... in any endeavor wherein the goal is VIABILITY.

Now your new SUPREME LEGISLATURE has voted that degeneracy is a protected class, thus people are forbidden from discriminating against degenerates. Meaning that the Supreme Legislature has licensed degeneracy, therefore your Supreme Legislature has voted against the viability of the US Culture... which for those keeping score, is an action taken against the people of the United States that does not conform to soundly reasoned standards of morality, thus which works as a destabilizing element.

So, all you've managed to do is to legalize that which fails to serve justice, as justice can only be served through objective reasoning and objective reasoning is that which considers the best interests of EVERYONE and not the subjective NEEDS of a tiny, insignificant minority.

What's more is that there was no unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of degenerates on the grounds of race, age, or gender... there was only the recognition of the difference between a degenerates need and the need of civilization, in terms of the soundly reasoned standard of marriage; which rests upon the human physiological design of the human species, which define Marriage as the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

You have; at least for the time being, stripped the US Culture of adherence to that essential natural principle. And we will all be subject to the unenviable consequences of that foolishness... and we're seeing those consequences being played out all around us, every day since that idiocy was finally set upon us, by your newly established SUPREME LEGISLATURE.

Examples of which are steadily being published here and which you can examines by simply clicking on this link.

 

[Skylar]

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?

So why exactly don't polyamorous-orientations enjoy those same rights.... You didn't say.

'
If you want polygamy, make your argument for it. But oddly, you keep demanding I make it for you.

 

[Skylar]

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?

So why exactly don't polyamorous-orientations enjoy those same rights.... You didn't say.

And it's not going to say...

Because to say is to expose the BIG LIE!

Which is that "Equal Protection Under the Law"... was and remains irrelevant to the Advocacy to Nomalize Degeneracy.

While equal protection and due process are immediately relevant to gays and their right to marry. Which is why marriage now includes a man and a man or a woman and a woman. In every State.

Including yours, Keyes. Next time you drive by your county building remember.....a happy gay or lesbian couple could be saying 'I Do' inside.

The Federal Licensing of Degeneracy merely paved the way for homosexuals to pursue children for sexual gratification... Legally.

Nope. Remember, you don't actually have the slightest clue what the law says or means. And you making up child molestation fantasies has no more relevance to the world we live in than your insane murder fantasies.

 

[Skylar]

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.

That is your straw reasoning.

Actually, that's this is my reasoning:

"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."

And its immediately relevant. As the USSC citation of the Loving decision in both the Windsor and Obergefell ruling demonstrate.

While none of your insane murder fantasies, hysteric babble about 'the responsibility to eradicate homosexuals' show up anywhere in either ruling. Which might explain why I was able to predict the outcome of the Obergefell case with pretty amazing accuracy. And you got ever detail wrong.

You assert that because people discriminate against people of race and THAT is immoral, thus it is illegal, that it should also be illegal for people to discriminate against degenerates.

In both the case of interracial marriage bans and same sex marriage bans, there's no state interest in denying them. There's no requirement of marriage that they can't meet, there's no valid legislative end in denying them, and there is harm to both the individual and their families. There are due process and equal protection violations to boot.

All of which I've explained to you. And if you read the Obergefell ruling, the USSC will happily explain to you again.

When in truth, it is a good thing to discriminate against degenerates because degeneracy runs counter to viability. (Ya see scamp, that's what degeneracy means) and the fact is that homosexuality is the presentation of mental disorder. And Mental Disorder is to be DISCOURAGED, NOT encouraged... in any endeavor wherein the goal is VIABILITY.

Gays and lesbians getting married don't have a thing to do with children of straight couples. For example, you don't have kids because your wife didn't want to bear your children and tried to divorce you repeatedly. Which has nothing to do with some gay couple in another state getting married.

Nor is anyone required to have kids or be able to have them in order to get married. An infertile couple has just as much right to marry as a fertile one. While procreation can be a purpose of marriage, there are other bases as well. And that's where your argument breaks. As you assume that procreation is the only possible purpose for marriage. Which is demonstrably false.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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?

So why exactly don't polyamorous-orientations enjoy those same rights.... You didn't say.

'
If you want polygamy, make your argument for it. But oddly, you keep demanding I make it for you.

Oh now THAT is a beautiful concession.

Reader, Skylar is desperate to avoid proving that it's cult has cut all tethers as the U.S. Culture careens down the slippery slope it set us upon.

Or which we set ourselves upon l by tolerating degenerates.

 

[Skylar]

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?

So why exactly don't polyamorous-orientations enjoy those same rights.... You didn't say.

'
If you want polygamy, make your argument for it. But oddly, you keep demanding I make it for you.

Oh now THAT is a beautiful concession.

Reader, Skylar is desperate to avoid proving that it's cult has cut all tethers as the U.S. Culture careens down the slippery slope it set us upon.

Or which we set ourselves upon l by tolerating degenerates.

That's it? A genetic, precanned reply that doesn't even reference anything you're replying to?

I'll offer you the same challenge: If you want polygamy, make your case.

And you do realize that the 'Reader' you keep alluding to...is just you talking to yourself, right?

 

[Silhouette]

The case has already been made. Sexual orientations may now marry.

 

[Silhouette]

I'll offer you the same challenge: If you want polygamy, make your case.

What part about "marriage equality" don't you get? You're suddenly a prude about some sexual orientations between consenting adults getting married? Please explain?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The case has already been made. Sexual orientations may now marry.

Yes... the US Supreme Legislature has voted and in their 5-4 Vote... it was determined that more people of the Nine People 'believe' that there is a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO MARRY. And as a consequence of THAT decision, the CONDITION that Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman... based upon that standard being in alignment with the sexual standard established BY NATURE ITSELF... was set REMOVED for the United States... thus THERE ARE NO CONDITIONS WHICH REGULATE MARRIAGE... thus marriage is WITHOUT CONDITIONS, THEREFORE MARRIAGE IS NOW: MEANINGLESS.

But In fairness to the evil that sought to render marriage meaningless... it only did so, as a means to undermine the authority of Parents.

After all, what authority could parents possibly possess, if a "parent" is equal to degenerates who are federally licensed to possess children of their own? That means that Parents are equal to the mentally disordered, whose demonstrated character is that they are prone to making poor decisions with regards to sexual boundaries and tend toward engaging in sex with anything that stirs their desire.

Therefore, at SOME point, we must PROTECT CHILDREN by providing them EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW... which will of course provide that children will have the legal means of sexual consent.

Now Degeneracy has already been fully licensed by the US Federal Government, meaning that the Degenerates are now a fully protected class, against which it is now ILLEGAL to DISCRIMINATE.

Therefore, once your children are provided "EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW", you will have no means to so much as COMPLAIN that your 7 year old son's science teacher is in a caring relationship with your son. And that your 6 year old daughter is in a loving relationship with her PE teacher.

See how that works?

 

[Syriusly]

The case has already been made. Sexual orientations may now marry.

No- people can marry- not sexual orientations.

 

[Syriusly]

I'll offer you the same challenge: If you want polygamy, make your case.

What part about "marriage equality" don't you get? You're suddenly a prude about some sexual orientations between consenting adults getting married? Please explain?

You either have an argument against polygamous marriage or you don't.

So far all you have shown is that you have no argument against polygamous marriage.

So why are you against it?

 

[Silhouette]

I'll offer you the same challenge: If you want polygamy, make your case.

What part about "marriage equality" don't you get? You're suddenly a prude about some sexual orientations between consenting adults getting married? Please explain?

You either have an argument against polygamous marriage or you don't.

So far all you have shown is that you have no argument against polygamous marriage.

So why are you against it?

I'm not really as much against these types of marriages as I am against removing states/citizens' rights to set social standards for themselves. We are talking about behaviors. I believe behaviors are the jurisdiction of the individual state...otherwise...you know...where do we draw the line on the US Supreme Court's authority & case load vs states?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I'll offer you the same challenge: If you want polygamy, make your case.

What part about "marriage equality" don't you get? You're suddenly a prude about some sexual orientations between consenting adults getting married? Please explain?

You either have an argument against polygamous marriage or you don't.

So far all you have shown is that you have no argument against polygamous marriage.

So why are you against it?

I'm not really as much against these types of marriages as I am against removing states/citizens' rights to set social standards for themselves. We are talking about behaviors. I believe behaviors are the jurisdiction of the individual state...otherwise...you know...where do we draw the line on the US Supreme Court's authority & case load vs states?

There is no longer a Supreme Court.

The Left has new established a Supreme Legislature, which simply votes its own 'feelings' and whatever feeling is found in the majority on a given hearing, is that feeling that prevails.

There's no semblance of Justice to be found in that mess.

Now, with the Supreme Court gone and Justice now no longer even remotely possible... we merely await what must follow it... and that's no different from what has followed evil for the entirely of human history.

We have tolerated Degeneracy and we're now going to reap what we have sown.

 

[Silhouette]

"Supreme Legislature". Yes, that really is the essence of the problem isn't it? Shall we dub Congress now the "Lame Duck Legislature"? After all, they are supposed to check the power of the erstwhile Supreme Court......and haven't. Not feeling the good vibe for the GOP at this point. Seems like the more virile and potent party is the democratic one. Hard to have respect for whimps. At least you have to give the hard left points for their tancity and brazen moxy, pissing all over the weaking republicans like this.

 

[ChrisL]

Why are you cons so scared of the gays?

 

[Skylar]

I'll offer you the same challenge: If you want polygamy, make your case.

What part about "marriage equality" don't you get? You're suddenly a prude about some sexual orientations between consenting adults getting married? Please explain?

You either have an argument against polygamous marriage or you don't.

So far all you have shown is that you have no argument against polygamous marriage.

So why are you against it?

I'm not really as much against these types of marriages as I am against removing states/citizens' rights to set social standards for themselves. We are talking about behaviors. I believe behaviors are the jurisdiction of the individual state...otherwise...you know...where do we draw the line on the US Supreme Court's authority & case load vs states?

There is no longer a Supreme Court.

Sure there is. They merely disagreed with you. So you're having a little meltdown.

You'll get over it.

The Left has new established a Supreme Legislature, which simply votes its own 'feelings' and whatever feeling is found in the majority on a given hearing, is that feeling that prevails.

'Feeling' would be your insane murder fantasies, where you argue how morally justified you'd be in 'eradicating homosexuals'. The USSC's ruling was quite in line with existing precedent. And supported by the overwhelming majority of the country.

It was a good ruling.

 

[Syriusly]

I'll offer you the same challenge: If you want polygamy, make your case.

What part about "marriage equality" don't you get? You're suddenly a prude about some sexual orientations between consenting adults getting married? Please explain?

You either have an argument against polygamous marriage or you don't.

So far all you have shown is that you have no argument against polygamous marriage.

So why are you against it?

I'm not really as much against these types of marriages as I am against removing states/citizens' rights to set social standards for themselves. We are talking about behaviors. I believe behaviors are the jurisdiction of the individual state...otherwise...you know...where do we draw the line on the US Supreme Court's authority & case load vs states?

There is no longer a Supreme Court.

The Left has new established a Supreme Legislature,.

Just one more example of Keys deteriorating mental health.