Page 34 of 37 FirstFirst ... 243233343536 ... LastLast
Results 331 to 340 of 367

Thread: Polygamy Advocate Groups Hail Judge Ruling in Utah

  1. #331
    Guru

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    07-04-15 @ 04:17 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,032

    Re: Polygamy Advocate Groups Hail Judge Ruling in Utah

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    Start with groups like Loving More and The Polyamory Society. You might be better than me with searches and are able to find some raw statistics. If you already have kinks, you can also look up the large number of poly groups on Fetlife. (For some people poly is a kink! LOL) Now I will note that there seems to be some reluctance among at least some of the poly community to use the work polygamy, either because of the link to the FLDS or because of the lack of real legal standing. But most of us will talk about our poly families. And if you're talking about families usually you're talking marriage of some sort.

    Oh I think Our America had also done a show on poly. You should be able to get some clips from there was well.
    Thanks for the links! I don't think it's a kink at all, personally. It's not something I'm into because I think my upbringing would make it hard for me to handle it; yet I can certainly appreciate it can be a lot healthier than a two person relationship where you are dependent on just one other person for all your fulfillment. But I think I'm too old to change. But I like reading up on it, so appreciate the links.

    (Totally off-topic, the many variations of hermaphrodites also fascinate me, even though I'm not one. Humans are so variable!)

  2. #332
    Haters gon' hate
    MarineTpartier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    01-04-16 @ 04:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,586
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: Polygamy Advocate Groups Hail Judge Ruling in Utah

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    Your post is full of crap. Absolutely no one said anything about the article referencing DOMA. In fact, numerous people pointed out that the article had *nothing* to do with DOMA (or marriage)
    That's what I just said! The exact post you just quoted of me was
    I'm merely pointing to the fact that a few people on this thread were mistaken in thinking that the article referenced DOMA in any way.
    . Yes, that's exactly what some people did. They thought the article was supposed to have some sort of DOMA reference when it didn't. I never said it did in the OP but some misinterpreted it as me saying it did. Get it now (probably not)?


    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    Now your post is hypocritical. You complain about others reading something into your OP (even though no one did that) and now you're imagining that I something about precedent.
    I didn't
    I didn't say you did. Do you know what punctuation in the English language is? Read the question again.
    Your claim is that our justice system DOESN'T consider precedents that have been set?




    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    1) You say some people in this thread have mistakenly claimed that the article in your OP references DOMA - you have no evidence to support this
    In the context you state? No, I don't. But in the context I'm speaking of? Yes, there's pages of it. I even apologized to one user for misleading him into thinking there was a reference to DOMA in the article. I believe it was TacticalEvilDan
    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    2) You say that I said something about precedence - you have no evidence to support this
    Nope, sure didn't. Apparently you don't know what a "?" means.
    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    3) You say that DOMA somehow affected this judge's opinion about whether the govt can restrict who can get married - you have no evidence to support this
    I said I thought it did. I didn't say it definitively did. No one can know what went through the judges mind in this case.


    Just as I thought. Instead of debate the topic, you decide to attack whether evidence exists to support something I said I believe. This is why I stopped responding to you a long time ago. Now, I remember why.
    I don't need evidence to support this. It's a friggin theory that makes sense TO ME due to the fact that our justice system is a system that depends heavily upon precedent. I believe a precedent has been set that the gov't should not dictate who can and can't be married by the repeal of section 3 of DOMA as well as many states decisions to legalize SSM. If you disagree, then disagree. Instead of doing that, you will continue your diversion tactics. I will now be reinstating my self-imposed ban of responding to anything you post. It's a waste of the calories I burn while typing.
    Last edited by MarineTpartier; 12-19-13 at 08:24 PM.
    “Mr. Speaker, I once again find myself compelled to vote against the annual budget resolution for a very simple reason: it makes government bigger.” ― Ron Paul
    Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty. – Thomas Jefferson

  3. #333
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Polygamy Advocate Groups Hail Judge Ruling in Utah

    Quote Originally Posted by MarineTpartier View Post
    That's what I just said! The exact post you just quoted of me was . Yes, that's exactly what some people did. They thought the article was supposed to have some sort of DOMA reference when it didn't. I never said it did in the OP but some misinterpreted it as me saying it did. Get it now (probably not)?
    I get it but what you're saying is not true. No one claimed you said the article referenced DOMA.


    I didn't say you did. Do you know what punctuation in the English language is? Read the question again.
    Your post is full of crap. You can pretend all you want that your question was "innocent" but the fact remains I said nothing about precedent. Your asking if I said something about precedent when it's clear that I said nothing about precedent is dishonest and intentionally deceiving.




    In the context you state? No, I don't. But in the context I'm speaking of? Yes, there's pages of it. I even apologized to one user for misleading him into thinking there was a reference to DOMA in the article. I believe it was TacticalEvilDan
    No, TED did not claim you said the article references DOMA. TED took issue with the fact that *you* (not the article) referenced DOMA when the article had nothing to do with DOMA.

    Nope, sure didn't. Apparently you don't know what a "?" means.
    Apparently, you don't realize that phrasing a statement in the form of a question is one of the oldest tricks in debate and transparently dishonest. You actually think you're fooling someone by pretending your question was sincere


    I said I thought it did. I didn't say it definitively did. No one can know what went through the judges mind in this case.
    Yes, you think it did even though you have absolutely no evidence that it did.



    Just as I thought. Instead of debate the topic, you decide to attack whether evidence exists to support something I said I believe. This is why I stopped responding to you a long time ago. Now, I remember why.
    I don't need evidence to support this. It's a friggin theory that makes sense TO ME due to the fact that our justice system is a system that depends heavily upon precedent. I believe a precedent has been set that the gov't should not dictate who can and can't be married by the repeal of section 3 of DOMA as well as many states decisions to legalize SSM. If you disagree, then disagree. Instead of doing that, you will continue your diversion tactics. I will now be reinstating my self-imposed ban of responding to anything you post. It's a waste of the calories I burn while typing.
    Yes, you don't need evidence. You can believe anything you want based solely on your desire for it to be true. But complaining when people point out your complete lack of any factual basis to support your belief is nothing but whining. For all your blather about wanting to "discuss" this, the bottom line is that you have nothing to say except "I believe this"

    PS - the courts decision in DOMA specifically says that states can dictate who can and can't marry so long as that decision fulfills certain conditions.
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  4. #334
    Haters gon' hate
    MarineTpartier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    01-04-16 @ 04:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,586
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: Polygamy Advocate Groups Hail Judge Ruling in Utah

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    No, TED did not claim you said the article references DOMA. TED took issue with the fact that *you* (not the article) referenced DOMA when the article had nothing to do with DOMA.
    Quote Originally Posted by TacticalEvilDan View Post
    I am confused. The article you posted didn't mention DOMA once. In fact, the judge's ruling cited the First Amendment, rather than the absence of DOMA. A First Amendment argument would've trumped even DOMA. So the people who "predicted this exact situation would happen as a result" are full of ****.
    Yeah, that's the deduction I would make from the above post as well.
    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    Apparently, you don't realize that phrasing a statement in the form of a question is one of the oldest tricks in debate and transparently dishonest. You actually think you're fooling someone by pretending your question was sincere
    Apparently you like to assume things and you still didn't answer the question. I actually expected you to answer it. If I was making a statement, I would've made a statement. I wasn't. I was asking a question. I believe you don't want to answer the question because you know that our justice system is based on precedent and that would support my claim.
    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    Yes, you don't need evidence. You can believe anything you want based solely on your desire for it to be true. But complaining when people point out your complete lack of any factual basis to support your belief is nothing but whining. For all your blather about wanting to "discuss" this, the bottom line is that you have nothing to say except "I believe this"
    I believe it because I know how the justice system works. I would assume you do as well, even though you don't want to admit precedent is a major factor in rulings. A precedent being set by the Supreme Court holds weight in every level of the justice system. A precedent has been set that a court shouldn't decide who can and can't be married. That would hold weight in this decision IMO.
    “Mr. Speaker, I once again find myself compelled to vote against the annual budget resolution for a very simple reason: it makes government bigger.” ― Ron Paul
    Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty. – Thomas Jefferson

  5. #335
    Shankmasta Killa
    TacticalEvilDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Western NY and Geneva, CH
    Last Seen
    08-30-15 @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,444

    Re: Polygamy Advocate Groups Hail Judge Ruling in Utah

    Quote Originally Posted by MarineTpartier View Post
    Yeah, that's the deduction I would make from the above post as well.
    Don't talk about me, talk to me. What exactly is your major maladjustment with what I said?
    I'm already gearing up for Finger Vote 2014.

    Just for reference, means my post was a giant steaming pile of sarcasm.

  6. #336
    Haters gon' hate
    MarineTpartier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    01-04-16 @ 04:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,586
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: Polygamy Advocate Groups Hail Judge Ruling in Utah

    Quote Originally Posted by TacticalEvilDan View Post
    Don't talk about me, talk to me. What exactly is your major maladjustment with what I said?
    Lol, chill out there internet tough guy. Read the exchanges between Sangha and I and you will see. I don't have any issue with anything you said.
    “Mr. Speaker, I once again find myself compelled to vote against the annual budget resolution for a very simple reason: it makes government bigger.” ― Ron Paul
    Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty. – Thomas Jefferson

  7. #337
    Shankmasta Killa
    TacticalEvilDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Western NY and Geneva, CH
    Last Seen
    08-30-15 @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,444

    Re: Polygamy Advocate Groups Hail Judge Ruling in Utah

    Quote Originally Posted by MarineTpartier View Post
    Lol, chill out there internet tough guy. Read the exchanges between Sangha and I and you will see. I don't have any issue with anything you said.
    Tough guy? Seriously? I'm remembering now why I left this discussion to begin with. How about you clearly and succinctly annunciate what you think I was saying in that quote?
    I'm already gearing up for Finger Vote 2014.

    Just for reference, means my post was a giant steaming pile of sarcasm.

  8. #338
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Polygamy Advocate Groups Hail Judge Ruling in Utah

    Quote Originally Posted by MarineTpartier View Post
    Yeah, that's the deduction I would make from the above post as well.
    Deduction? IOW, TED did not say that you said the article mentioned DOMA.

    Apparently, you have to make stuff up so you can deny discussing what you did say, while claiming that you want to talk about it.


    Apparently you like to assume things and you still didn't answer the question. I actually expected you to answer it. If I was making a statement, I would've made a statement. I wasn't. I was asking a question. I believe you don't want to answer the question because you know that our justice system is based on precedent and that would support my claim.
    More denial on your part.

    I believe it because I know how the justice system works. I would assume you do as well, even though you don't want to admit precedent is a major factor in rulings. A precedent being set by the Supreme Court holds weight in every level of the justice system. A precedent has been set that a court shouldn't decide who can and can't be married. That would hold weight in this decision IMO.
    I guess you'll never explain why DOMA would cause a judge to think that the govt can't limit who can get married when DOMA explicitly states that the govt can limit who can get married (under certain specific conditions)
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  9. #339
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Polygamy Advocate Groups Hail Judge Ruling in Utah

    Quote Originally Posted by TacticalEvilDan View Post
    Don't talk about me, talk to me. What exactly is your major maladjustment with what I said?
    Quote Originally Posted by TacticalEvilDan View Post
    Tough guy? Seriously? I'm remembering now why I left this discussion to begin with. How about you clearly and succinctly annunciate what you think I was saying in that quote?

    He's trying to argue that you accused him of saying the article mentioned DOMA even though you did not say that. All you did, as many others have done, is point out that the article made no mention of DOMA and you tried to get him to explain why *he* (not the article) is linking DOMA to this judge's decision

    The ironic thing is, for all his blather about how he wants to provoke discussion, he refuses to discuss why he thinks DOMA has anything to do with this.
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  10. #340
    Guru

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    07-04-15 @ 04:17 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,032

    Re: Polygamy Advocate Groups Hail Judge Ruling in Utah

    I hate to interrupt such a riveting discussion, really - but is the discussion being advanced by two people arguing whether or not someone said or didn't say that the article referred to DOMA?

    Or has the thread been killed by this disgression?

    Just some questions. Continue on.

Page 34 of 37 FirstFirst ... 243233343536 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •