If polyamory is next, then polygamy isn't far behind

[Silhouette]

The actual children of same sex parents oppose the studies telling them how happy they are.

Gay couples’ children oppose same-sex marriage, tell of unpleasant upbringings

Adults Raised by Gay Couples Speak Out Against Gay ‘Marriage’ in Federal Court

Don't these people know about all the studies?

Heaven's no. The main stream media would never discuss those in a million years. Let's just all pretend the two lesbos next door are Ozzie and Harriet so we won't have to talk about uncomfortable subjects about their child's angst and all that stuff! The kid can just learn to call the woman who dresses, talks, walks and acts like a man "daddy". Nuff said. The child will never know the difference and never suspect that something is gravely amiss.

 

[mdk]

Heaven's no. The main stream media would never discuss those in a million years. Let's just all pretend the two lesbos next door are Ozzie and Harriet so we won't have to talk about uncomfortable subjects about their child's angst and all that stuff! The kid can just learn to call the woman who dresses, talks, walks and acts like a man "daddy". Nuff said. The child will never know the difference and never suspect that something is gravely amiss.

Perhaps if you spent less time worrying about the two lesbos down the street you could have provided provided a father to your children. Too real?

 

[WinterBorn]

The actual children of same sex parents oppose the studies telling them how happy they are.

Gay couples’ children oppose same-sex marriage, tell of unpleasant upbringings

Adults Raised by Gay Couples Speak Out Against Gay ‘Marriage’ in Federal Court

Don't these people know about all the studies?

Heaven's no. The main stream media would never discuss those in a million years. Let's just all pretend the two lesbos next door are Ozzie and Harriet so we won't have to talk about uncomfortable subjects about their child's angst and all that stuff! The kid can just learn to call the woman who dresses, talks, walks and acts like a man "daddy". Nuff said. The child will never know the difference and never suspect that something is gravely amiss.

Isn't the topic here polyamory?

 

[rightwinger]

I am looking forward to polygamy being legal

I want to see if Christians refuse to bale them cakes

 

[martybegan]

But if 3 or 4 people love each other, who are we to judge?

The same way the law judges bigamy.

I'm using the same logic SSM supported used, but for some reason you reject it. Why?

When did the supporters of SSM claim that bigamy was legal?

They didn't but the same touchy feely "love is love" logic used to support SSM also supports allowing plural marriage.

I've read the Obergefell decision. I didn't note any 'love is love' logic used in it.

I am talking about the talking points used by supporters, not the crap in the SC decision.

 

[Skylar]

The same way the law judges bigamy.

I'm using the same logic SSM supported used, but for some reason you reject it. Why?

When did the supporters of SSM claim that bigamy was legal?

They didn't but the same touchy feely "love is love" logic used to support SSM also supports allowing plural marriage.

I've read the Obergefell decision. I didn't note any 'love is love' logic used in it.

I am talking about the talking points used by supporters, not the crap in the SC decision.

I'll stick with the legal arguments, thank you. And none of them support polygamy nor even mention it.

 

[martybegan]

I'm using the same logic SSM supported used, but for some reason you reject it. Why?

When did the supporters of SSM claim that bigamy was legal?

They didn't but the same touchy feely "love is love" logic used to support SSM also supports allowing plural marriage.

I've read the Obergefell decision. I didn't note any 'love is love' logic used in it.

I am talking about the talking points used by supporters, not the crap in the SC decision.

I'll stick with the legal arguments, thank you. And none of them support polygamy nor even mention it.

The SSM side didn't stick to legal arguments only, why should you?

 

[rightwinger]

When did the supporters of SSM claim that bigamy was legal?

They didn't but the same touchy feely "love is love" logic used to support SSM also supports allowing plural marriage.

I've read the Obergefell decision. I didn't note any 'love is love' logic used in it.

I am talking about the talking points used by supporters, not the crap in the SC decision.

I'll stick with the legal arguments, thank you. And none of them support polygamy nor even mention it.

The SSM side didn't stick to legal arguments only, why should you?

Very true

They had a more difficult task in winning over public opinion towards SSM before the court would side with them

 

[martybegan]

They didn't but the same touchy feely "love is love" logic used to support SSM also supports allowing plural marriage.

I've read the Obergefell decision. I didn't note any 'love is love' logic used in it.

I am talking about the talking points used by supporters, not the crap in the SC decision.

I'll stick with the legal arguments, thank you. And none of them support polygamy nor even mention it.

The SSM side didn't stick to legal arguments only, why should you?

Very true

They had a more difficult task in winning over public opinion towards SSM before the court would side with them

Localized winning over public opinion, and only really in the States that allowed it via legislative action.

 

[rightwinger]

I've read the Obergefell decision. I didn't note any 'love is love' logic used in it.

I am talking about the talking points used by supporters, not the crap in the SC decision.

I'll stick with the legal arguments, thank you. And none of them support polygamy nor even mention it.

The SSM side didn't stick to legal arguments only, why should you?

Very true

They had a more difficult task in winning over public opinion towards SSM before the court would side with them

Localized winning over public opinion, and only really in the States that allowed it via legislative action.

Once nationwide acceptance of same sex marriage passed 50% the court finally decided to accept the obvious

Polygamy faces the same battle. Gays had to fight for public acceptance of their relationships. Before Polygamists can win in the courts, they will have to gain public acceptance....just like gays did

 

[martybegan]

I am talking about the talking points used by supporters, not the crap in the SC decision.

I'll stick with the legal arguments, thank you. And none of them support polygamy nor even mention it.

The SSM side didn't stick to legal arguments only, why should you?

Very true

They had a more difficult task in winning over public opinion towards SSM before the court would side with them

Localized winning over public opinion, and only really in the States that allowed it via legislative action.

Once nationwide acceptance of same sex marriage passed 50% the court finally decided to accept the obvious

Polygamy faces the same battle. Gays had to fight for public acceptance of their relationships. Before Polygamists can win in the courts, they will have to gain public acceptance....just like gays did

So in other words, "screw federalism".

Got it.

 

[rightwinger]

I'll stick with the legal arguments, thank you. And none of them support polygamy nor even mention it.

The SSM side didn't stick to legal arguments only, why should you?

Very true

They had a more difficult task in winning over public opinion towards SSM before the court would side with them

Localized winning over public opinion, and only really in the States that allowed it via legislative action.

Once nationwide acceptance of same sex marriage passed 50% the court finally decided to accept the obvious

Polygamy faces the same battle. Gays had to fight for public acceptance of their relationships. Before Polygamists can win in the courts, they will have to gain public acceptance....just like gays did

So in other words, "screw federalism".

Got it.

So, in other words

**** the States

 

[martybegan]

The SSM side didn't stick to legal arguments only, why should you?

Very true

They had a more difficult task in winning over public opinion towards SSM before the court would side with them

Localized winning over public opinion, and only really in the States that allowed it via legislative action.

Once nationwide acceptance of same sex marriage passed 50% the court finally decided to accept the obvious

Polygamy faces the same battle. Gays had to fight for public acceptance of their relationships. Before Polygamists can win in the courts, they will have to gain public acceptance....just like gays did

So in other words, "screw federalism".

Got it.

So, in other words

**** the States

Not surprising. Progressives want the most power held by the people as far away from their constituents as possible.

 

[rightwinger]

Very true

They had a more difficult task in winning over public opinion towards SSM before the court would side with them

Localized winning over public opinion, and only really in the States that allowed it via legislative action.

Once nationwide acceptance of same sex marriage passed 50% the court finally decided to accept the obvious

Polygamy faces the same battle. Gays had to fight for public acceptance of their relationships. Before Polygamists can win in the courts, they will have to gain public acceptance....just like gays did

So in other words, "screw federalism".

Got it.

So, in other words

**** the States

Not surprising. Progressives want the most power held by the people as far away from their constituents as possible.

We have found that certain states in this country are incapable of defending human rights whether it be slavery, civil rights or gay rights

Our Federal Government has found it necessary to go in and kick their asses once in a while

 

[martybegan]

Localized winning over public opinion, and only really in the States that allowed it via legislative action.

Once nationwide acceptance of same sex marriage passed 50% the court finally decided to accept the obvious

Polygamy faces the same battle. Gays had to fight for public acceptance of their relationships. Before Polygamists can win in the courts, they will have to gain public acceptance....just like gays did

So in other words, "screw federalism".

Got it.

So, in other words

**** the States

Not surprising. Progressives want the most power held by the people as far away from their constituents as possible.

We have found that certain states in this country are incapable of defending human rights whether it be slavery, civil rights or gay rights

Our Federal Government has found it necessary to go in and kick their asses once in a while

Except when it comes to 2nd amendment rights, of course. Guns are icky.

 

[rightwinger]

Once nationwide acceptance of same sex marriage passed 50% the court finally decided to accept the obvious

Polygamy faces the same battle. Gays had to fight for public acceptance of their relationships. Before Polygamists can win in the courts, they will have to gain public acceptance....just like gays did

So in other words, "screw federalism".

Got it.

So, in other words

**** the States

Not surprising. Progressives want the most power held by the people as far away from their constituents as possible.

We have found that certain states in this country are incapable of defending human rights whether it be slavery, civil rights or gay rights

Our Federal Government has found it necessary to go in and kick their asses once in a while

Except when it comes to 2nd amendment rights, of course. Guns are icky.

Ask Heller

 

[martybegan]

So in other words, "screw federalism".

Got it.

So, in other words

**** the States

Not surprising. Progressives want the most power held by the people as far away from their constituents as possible.

We have found that certain states in this country are incapable of defending human rights whether it be slavery, civil rights or gay rights

Our Federal Government has found it necessary to go in and kick their asses once in a while

Except when it comes to 2nd amendment rights, of course. Guns are icky.

Ask Heller

Nice dodge.

 

[Skylar]

When did the supporters of SSM claim that bigamy was legal?

They didn't but the same touchy feely "love is love" logic used to support SSM also supports allowing plural marriage.

I've read the Obergefell decision. I didn't note any 'love is love' logic used in it.

I am talking about the talking points used by supporters, not the crap in the SC decision.

I'll stick with the legal arguments, thank you. And none of them support polygamy nor even mention it.

The SSM side didn't stick to legal arguments only, why should you?

The 'SSM side' is anyone who ever made any argument advocating same sex marriage in the last 10 years. I'll stick with the legal argument, those arguments made in court by the actual plaintiffs.

And none of them involved the legalization of bigamy.

 

[martybegan]

They didn't but the same touchy feely "love is love" logic used to support SSM also supports allowing plural marriage.

I've read the Obergefell decision. I didn't note any 'love is love' logic used in it.

I am talking about the talking points used by supporters, not the crap in the SC decision.

I'll stick with the legal arguments, thank you. And none of them support polygamy nor even mention it.

The SSM side didn't stick to legal arguments only, why should you?

The 'SSM side' is anyone who ever made any argument advocating same sex marriage in the last 10 years. I'll stick with the legal argument, those arguments made in court by the actual plaintiffs.

And none of them involved the legalization of bigamy.

The "SSM" side I am talking about is the ones that used the courts to create a made up right to it. And plenty of their arguments were based on "love is love".

So I ask again, why doesn't that apply to plural marriage?

 

[Skylar]

So, in other words

**** the States

Not surprising. Progressives want the most power held by the people as far away from their constituents as possible.

We have found that certain states in this country are incapable of defending human rights whether it be slavery, civil rights or gay rights

Our Federal Government has found it necessary to go in and kick their asses once in a while

Except when it comes to 2nd amendment rights, of course. Guns are icky.

Ask Heller

Nice dodge.

Dodge? Unless you're arguing that Heller didn't protect gun rights, its an explicit example of the federal courts doing what you insist the federal government doesn't do.

I don't think 'dodge' means what you think it means.