Is Gay Marriage Already Void? &/Or Is Polygamy Already Legal?

[Thinker101]

So slyhunters role is strawman-inserter. Got it.

I prefer Devils Advocate.
I put the spot light on the consequences of your argument.
The reason for one man one woman is so poor men have a chance of getting a woman of their own. Without which some will give up on life and turn to crime, fill up our prisons and **** each other to hell and back.

So is that why our prisons have a higher population of blacks and Hispanics?

 

[Syriusly]

Except gay marriage is not illegal. And polygamy is.

.

Both are sexual orientations.

Neither are sexual orientations.

Perhaps the root of your problem is you can't tell the difference between marriage- and sexual orientation.

 

[Pop23]

So slyhunters role is strawman-inserter. Got it.

I prefer Devils Advocate.
I put the spot light on the consequences of your argument.
The reason for one man one woman is so poor men have a chance of getting a woman of their own. Without which some will give up on life and turn to crime, fill up our prisons and **** each other to hell and back.

Why do you assume 1 man with many women? It can be 1 woman with multiple men. 2 men and 2 women or any mix.

 

[Pop23]

Except gay marriage is not illegal. And polygamy is.

.

Both are sexual orientations.

Neither are sexual orientations.

Perhaps the root of your problem is you can't tell the difference between marriage- and sexual orientation.

They sure could be.

 

[Silhouette]

Neither are sexual orientations.

Perhaps the root of your problem is you can't tell the difference between marriage- and sexual orientation.

So your style of rebuttal is to mutilate language?

Why can't a man or woman marry two or more people if they are sexually oriented that way? Especially when Obergefell wove the words "homosexual" & "gays & lesbians" throughout its opinion?

 

[Skylar]

Except gay marriage is not illegal. And polygamy is.

.

Both are sexual orientations. And sexual orientation is woven as the pleading idea in Obergefell throughout.

Again, sexual orientation is never used as a basis of the right to marry. You keep equating same sex intimacy with same sex couples. They aren’t the same thing nor does the court ever equate them.

Just you do. And your confusion isn’t a legal standard.

The Obergefell decision never decriminalized polygamy nor even mentions it.

You’ve imagined it. And your imagination isn’t a legal standard either.

So sexual orientation won the rights to marry.

Nope. Sexual orientation is never cited as the basis is of the right to marry. Same sex couples were recognized as possessing that right. Not a sexual orientation. Nor is polyamory a sexual orientation. You literally have no idea what you’re talking about.

 

[Silhouette]

Is it your plan & hope that folks won't actually read Obergefell, where the words " homosexual" & "gays & lesbians" & "same sex intimacy" can be cited interwoven throughout?

Or is it your hope that you can claim those words aren't a reference to sexual orientation?

 

[mdk]

Is it your plan & hope that folks won't actually read Obergefell, where the words " homosexual" & "gays & lesbians" & "same sex intimacy" can be cited interwoven throughout?

And yet when the Brown Family sued to have their polygamous marriages legally recognized, they cited the religious freedoms of the First Amendment and the Right to Privacy as their arguments, not Obergefell. Why don't you support the religious freedoms of the Brown Family?

 

[Syriusly]

Neither are sexual orientations.

Perhaps the root of your problem is you can't tell the difference between marriage- and sexual orientation.

So your style of rebuttal is to mutilate language?

My style of rebuttal is to rebut your fallacies.

Marriage- gay or straight- is not a sexual orientation. Polygamy is not a sexual orientation.

I am pointing out you can't even understand something as fundamental as the difference between marriage and sexual orientation.

 

[Syriusly]

Is it your plan & hope that folks won't actually read Obergefell, where the words " homosexual" & "gays & lesbians" & "same sex intimacy" can be cited interwoven throughout?

Or is it your hope that you can claim those words aren't a reference to sexual orientation?

Again- whose plan?

Obergefell doesn't mention polygamy.

But if you want to pursue marrying your sister wife by such a whacky argument- go to court and do so.

 

[usmcstinger]

The Court opened up Marriage to mean whatever you want it to be. If a son wants to marry his mother it is legal.

 

[Syriusly]

The Court opened up Marriage to mean whatever you want it to be. If a son wants to marry his mother it is legal.

Poor little snowflake.

You should stop listening to whatever wingnut right wing propaganda source that feeds this bullshit to you gullible sheeple.

 

[Silhouette]

The Court opened up Marriage to mean whatever you want it to be. If a son wants to marry his mother it is legal.

If he has a maternal-orientation (Oedipus anyone?) and they're both consenting adults, then yeah. Any minority (majority rejected) sexual orientation between consenting adults was given a pass to marry legally in 2015. The courts cannot discriminate which ones they find icky and which they don't. According to the 14th Amendment, that would be arbitrary discrimination.