Polygamous Montana Trio Applies for Wedding License

[Spider]

As I already told you, they are related only in the sense that marriage is involved. But pretty much everything is related if you stand back and squint. Are they related in such a way that the guy in the OP can claim a right to commit bigamy because gay people can get married? Nope. Polygamy is not an argument for gay marriage, and gay marriage is not an argument for polygamy. In fact, considering the low opinion people usually have for polygamy, and the negative connotations, (especially among Mormons, for example) I regard conflating gay marriage with polygamy as not-so-soft homophobia.

Its beyond obvious that one thing can eventually lead to another, so I'm not sure what you're on about. I didn't say, even once, that the gay marriage ruling wasn't going to be an eventual factor in further marriage law reforms. Never even implied it. Its just a straw man. If you can quote me saying that the gay marriage ruling isn't going to be an eventual factor in further marriage law reforms, please do so.

Do I think polygamy is going to be legalized anytime soon? Not a chance. Probably not even within my lifetime. Should it be? Yes, obviously. But now we've wandered way beyond the scope of what I was saying.

[Spider]

[exploited]

[Spider]

[exploited]

[Spider]

Actually, no. I'd never heard that saying. I think I've been lucky in life to have come across a lot of really great people. The assholes are actually pretty far between, and easily dealt with. I only seem to bump up against the really dysfunctional ones online. Which is obviously the best place for it.

I already offered to walk you through every sentence. I basically have already. But you don't want to do that again. Just get dismantled some more.

Lets conduct an experiment. I'll throw down a sentence:

"A black and white dog walked down the street, wagging his tail and sniffing at the ground."

From that sentence, its easily apparent that I said that:

1. The dog was black and white.
2. It was walking down a street.
3. It was wagging its tail.
4. It was sniffing at the ground.

That's all. Anything at all beyond that is not my responsibility. Its just assumption and preconception.

You, on the other hand, if the usual pattern holds, would claim that I had said:

1. The dog is a Dalmatian.
2. It was actually walking down the sidewalk and crapping on people's yards.
3. Its happy to be approaching its owner...why else would it wag its tail?
4. Its trying to follow the scent trail of another dog.
5. I was actually talking about the cat at the other end of the next block. Because it also has a tail and sniffs things.
6. Or, you'd just make something up from the ether.

There is what I literally say, and that's all. Anything else is on you.

I don't know why your so invested in this. You get so mad.

I'm never going to play games with one of your straw men. I've repeatedly made my position on this clear...and you've repeatedly ignored me because what I'm saying doesn't match your assumptions, and it short circuits your little brain. I think that's why I can't relate to you. I'm interested in what actually is. What was actually said. You on the other hand start with a precondition and try to warp reality around to suit it. And obviously, get !!super duper mad!! when I don't play along with it. Makes for fun internets.

If you want to know what I think about something, you only need ask. But the trick (and this is important!) is that you actually listen and absorb the information...even if it doesn't mesh with whatever assumption you had ahead of time. OK, Champ?

[exploited]

[Spider]

[exploited]

[xdangerousxdavex]