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

[Vandalshandle]

Sil, Do us all a favor. Get laid, and then smoke a cigarette. Then chill out, and have a good night's sleep.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Now for those interested in why Christians aren't about to accept this degeneracy, we turn to Paul in his writings to the Romans...

‘God Gave Them Over to a Debased Mind, to Do Those Things Which Are Not Fitting’

"... Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them."

Which Imam did you hear that from?

ROFLMNAO!

There should be a rule against setting contributors up with EPIC SLAMS... that violate site cardinal rules.

Consider it served... .

 

[TheOldSchool]

Now for those interested in why Christians aren't about to accept this degeneracy, we turn to Paul in his writings to the Romans...

‘God Gave Them Over to a Debased Mind, to Do Those Things Which Are Not Fitting’

"... Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them."

Which Imam did you hear that from?

ROFLMNAO!

There should be a rule against setting contributors up with EPIC SLAMS... that violate site cardinal rules.

Consider it served... .

I consider you a pussy.

 

[Syriusly]

It is the court's job to determine constitutionality. Which they did in the Obergefell ruling.

And we told you they were going to do. We told you the split, the precedent that would be cited, the legal principles that would be employed, the amendments that would be used, we even told you who would write the ruling.

But you insisted that you and your pseudo-legal gibberish knew better.

How'd that work out for you?

Interesting. Were you also on the committee who set up and tested the rainbow lights display before June 26, 2015 that was shown just hours after in defiance of the ruling majority on the issue of gay marriage?

Ah Silhouette- always looking for her Konspiracy in the sky.

The meltdown continues.

 

[Syriusly]

Yes, your same group shows up at every thread on this topic and spams ad hominems and tries diversions. Then when called out, calls it a conspiracy theory.

Now where were we? Oh, right Skylar, where do you think the decision would be placed on polygamy? States or SCOTUS? And what do you think, since you're the great seer of all aspects of every legal case before SCOTUS before they even Rule, how the Court would decide if they decide polygamy also cannot be decided by the states?

Anyone with a half a brain- so not you- knows how it will initially play out.

States prohibit polygamy.

Americans sue claiming such law is unconstitutional.

Fails in State court- eventually makes it to Federal Court.

In Federal Court it will all depend on whether the State has any argument to support the ban- IF like you the State has no argument- the State will lose and the ban will fall.

But pretty certain the States are smarter than you- and will have an argument.

 

[Syriusly]

Your obsession with gay men in banana hammocks is weird, bordering on creepy.

You want to see some heterosexual debauchery? Go to Mardi Gras, Carnivale, college spring break. All glorified by society.

Certain toutine days/nights of drunken debauchery in areas essentially roped off and well known in advance as "no go zones" for children (no matter which idiots take their kids in spite of this or not) are different than mid-day sober parades and any and all times of the year, of "pride" (lewd acts in front of kids) ?

I had a great time at the San Francisco Pride Parade there.

Didn't see a single lewd act beyond two women kissing and men dancing.

But what do I know- I was only there, and I didn't spend hours searching the internet trying to find lewd pictures from a gay pride parade like you do.

 

[Silhouette]

Sil, Do us all a favor. Get laid, and then smoke a cigarette. Then chill out, and have a good night's sleep.

No.

Now, back to the topic which I notice has been buried...again...

Which is... who will decide the Brown's polygamy (polyamory-orientation) civil rights marriage case? The states or SCOTUS? And why? I notice that the LGBT regulars are REALLY avoiding answering that question succinctly and directly. So far I think just one has answered that way. The rest are diversions, rather obvious ones, or ad hominems.

Is it "report to the moderator" time again?

 

[Syriusly]

Lots of kids looking to get adopted. I'm grateful gay couples are around to adopt them and raise them in a loving home, rather than having them shipped around in foster care. Now if only petty Christians like yourself would stop assaulting these children and their families so that they can get on with their lives and be happy.

Sure, and after gay dudes are done dry-humping in a pride parade with banana hammocks on in full view of kids, they can march into any adoption agency they like, wearing Harvey Milk t-shirts and take home a couple of wayward orphaned boys into their ...um..."loving" home...

Well someone has to take home the children that have been abandoned by their straight biological parents.

With 100,000 children at any time awaiting adoption, the hetero community is certainly not adopting them all.

After they attend the gay pride parade- perhaps marching with their mom and dad in the "Proud Parents of Gays"- if they go adopt the children abandoned by your people Silhouette- my thanks to them.

 

[Syriusly]

Sil, Do us all a favor. Get laid, and then smoke a cigarette. Then chill out, and have a good night's sleep.

No.

Now, back to the topic which I notice has been buried...again...

Which is... who will decide the Brown's polygamy (polyamory-orientation) civil rights marriage case? The states or SCOTUS? And why? I notice that the LGBT regulars are REALLY avoiding answering that question succinctly and directly. So far I think just one has answered that way. The rest are diversions, rather obvious ones, or ad hominems.

Is it "report to the moderator" time again?

Oh report away- I would love to see a log of your reports- they must be a hoot.

State courts will decide first and then Federal courts.

Won't even make it to the Supreme Court.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No question this will be done by the courts.

Disagree.

There are no issues in play concerning the Constitution or citizens' rights being violated by the Federal government or any state or local governments.

Polygamy is legal in all 50 states, any combination of three or more persons are liberty to live together with impunity.

Bigamy laws are Constitutional – they are rationally based, pursue a proper legislative end, and seek to disadvantage no class of persons.

In order for 'polygamists' to have some sort of a 'case' they must identify a law, measure, or policy they're eligible to participate in but are being denied access solely because of who they are. And because no marriage contract law exists that accommodates three or more persons marrying, there are no due process or equal protection rights violations to contest.

Persons cannot claim they're being 'discriminated against' concerning a law that doesn't exist.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Skylar, if you and your pals can pull yourselves away from ad hominems and diversions, would you like to answer? Since you are the great seer of all legal cases right down to the dotted i s and crossed t s before the Ruling is handed down, how do you see the Brown's polygamy case going down? SCOTUS or the states?

Neither.

There's nothing for the courts to review in the context of Obergefell and the states aren't going to repeal their bigamy laws and rewrite marriage laws to accommodate three or more persons.

The issue of same-sex couples marrying was ripe for review because, unlike three or more persons, same-sex couples were eligible to marry in accordance with existing state laws, laws that were in no need to be rewritten to accommodate same-sex couples.

This nonsense about 'polygamy next' is nothing but a red herring fallacy and failed attempt to undermine the validity of Obergefell.

 

[Skylar]

Yes, your same group shows up at every thread on this topic and spams ad hominems and tries diversions. Then when called out, calls it a conspiracy theory.

You've accused Gallup of being infiltrated by homosexuals and falsifying its polling data on support for gay marriage.....backed by nothing. You accuse anyone who calls you on your silly nonsense as being a 'hired poster'. As if anyone would pay money to have your posts replied to. And even more laughably, you've insisted I be subject to a criminal investigation because I correctly predicted the outcome of the Obergefell decision.

That's pure conspiracy batshit. You've imagined an elaborate fantasy world, as your predictions don't work well in this one.

Now where were we? Oh, right Skylar, where do you think the decision would be placed on polygamy? States or SCOTUS? And what do you think, since you're the great seer of all aspects of every legal case before SCOTUS before they even Rule, how the Court would decide if they decide polygamy also cannot be decided by the states?

Probably the States. As polygamy is incompatible with current precedent on marriage laws. And by 'incompatible', I mean that there are questions that would arise under polygamy that our marriage laws simply couldn't answer. Most of them having to do with participants entering and exiting unions at different times. Since that's impossible under 2 person marriage, we have no precedent for any of it in our marriage laws.

The fundamental incompatibility would likely act as a legal firewall, giving the States justification in recognizing or rejecting it.

While with same sex marriage, all 2 person marriage laws work beautifully.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

It is the court's job to determine constitutionality. Which they did in the Obergefell ruling.

And we told you they were going to do. We told you the split, the precedent that would be cited, the legal principles that would be employed, the amendments that would be used, we even told you who would write the ruling.

But you insisted that you and your pseudo-legal gibberish knew better.

How'd that work out for you?

Interesting. Were you also on the committee who set up and tested the rainbow lights display before June 26, 2015 that was shown just hours after in defiance of the ruling majority on the issue of gay marriage?

Obama was asked to flood the White House in red, white and blue on July 4th. He refused. That's because he hates this country and its traditions.

 

[Skylar]

It is the court's job to determine constitutionality. Which they did in the Obergefell ruling.

And we told you they were going to do. We told you the split, the precedent that would be cited, the legal principles that would be employed, the amendments that would be used, we even told you who would write the ruling.

But you insisted that you and your pseudo-legal gibberish knew better.

How'd that work out for you?

Interesting. Were you also on the committee who set up and tested the rainbow lights display before June 26, 2015 that was shown just hours after in defiance of the ruling majority on the issue of gay marriage?

Obama was asked to flood the White House in red, white and blue on July 4th. He refused. That's because he hates this country and its traditions.

Or because he limits the use of colored lights to once in a life time events.

 

[PratchettFan]

No question this will be done by the courts.

Disagree.

There are no issues in play concerning the Constitution or citizens' rights being violated by the Federal government or any state or local governments.

Polygamy is legal in all 50 states, any combination of three or more persons are liberty to live together with impunity.

Bigamy laws are Constitutional – they are rationally based, pursue a proper legislative end, and seek to disadvantage no class of persons.

In order for 'polygamists' to have some sort of a 'case' they must identify a law, measure, or policy they're eligible to participate in but are being denied access solely because of who they are. And because no marriage contract law exists that accommodates three or more persons marrying, there are no due process or equal protection rights violations to contest.

Persons cannot claim they're being 'discriminated against' concerning a law that doesn't exist.

You make an argument which may well be valid. Of course, it is essentially the same argument made against SSM. This will be decided in the courts.

 

[mdk]

The foot stomping hissy fits surrounding the colored lights on The White House is just hilarious to me. What a bunch of fucking crybabies!

 

[Pop23]

For fucks sake just be good to each other you foolish people. How about you do less judging and more supporting? Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The greatest idea ever presented to humanity, and yet so many do the opposite; especially those who claim to believe in it the most.

That could be the deflection of the year!

You go from, if it doesn't effect you keep your damn mouth shut, to do unto others..........

Is not keeping bloodlines clean, doing unto others? It does, and will effect future generation. If I was the child, born with defects from incestuous marriage (which can happen generations into the future) I'd have wished someone had stepped in.

 

[Pop23]

The foot stomping hissy fits surrounding the colored lights on The White House is just hilarious to me. What a bunch of fucking crybabies!

So says someone who call rectal sex by same sex couples is normal!

YOU CANT MAKE THIS SHIT UP!

 

[Pop23]

No question this will be done by the courts.

Disagree.

There are no issues in play concerning the Constitution or citizens' rights being violated by the Federal government or any state or local governments.

Polygamy is legal in all 50 states, any combination of three or more persons are liberty to live together with impunity.

Bigamy laws are Constitutional – they are rationally based, pursue a proper legislative end, and seek to disadvantage no class of persons.

In order for 'polygamists' to have some sort of a 'case' they must identify a law, measure, or policy they're eligible to participate in but are being denied access solely because of who they are. And because no marriage contract law exists that accommodates three or more persons marrying, there are no due process or equal protection rights violations to contest.

Persons cannot claim they're being 'discriminated against' concerning a law that doesn't exist.

You make an argument which may well be valid. Of course, it is essentially the same argument made against SSM. This will be decided in the courts.

Yup, it works for most alternative lifestyles since the limiting factors within marriage are arbitrary now.

 

[mdk]

The foot stomping hissy fits surrounding the colored lights on The White House is just hilarious to me. What a bunch of fucking crybabies!

So says someone who call rectal sex by same sex couples is normal!

YOU CANT MAKE THIS SHIT UP!

Whether you think it is normal or not is amazingly irrelevant to the law.

Incoming slippery slope hysterics in 3...2...1...