You continue to be disingenuous. And keep avoiding that…hence you aren’t to be taken seriously…despite you being a lawyer in training.

I wouldn’t expect you to understand…having no grasp on common sense and what not.

- And they would be in a state that recognizes same sex marriage. However, this is when we disagree, and that is fine:

“Since bisexuals would be allowed to marry two people so could people who are heterosexual otherwise the law would not be equal.”

- Bi-sexuals wouldn’t be allowed to marry two people. The marriage law would become gender neutral and state something like the following: “Marriage is between 2 people regardless of sex.”
- Bi-sexuals having a preference for both sexes won’t be discriminated against, because they can marry whomever they prefer to marry (male or female). However, as I said above, the amount of people you can marry is a separate and distinct from the sex of those whom you marry (in a same-sex marriage state). Bi-Sexuals will have more options as to who they can marry (since they can now marry the same sex), but having to only marry 1 other person won’t discrminate against them anymore than you or I having to choose 1 female. This is where we disagree. I feel I am right, but if a case ever comes before a court in a state that argues for polygamy based on same-sex marriage then we can both find out.

- As far as the makeup of the court. In order to accept a case at least 4 members of the court have to sign off on it. With 4 raging liberals on the bench, the polygamy case was still denied cert. So, I don’t think a more liberal court would really matter, and even if granted cert. I still don’t think it would be for any other reason than to, once again, reject polygamy, but on a different basis.

His cause is to subvert people like scope who is susceptible to his callings.

Just another leftist…this is what they do.

Anyway, I had written quite the rant three times as long as his longest and I said, Why waste my time? He is using judges in Canada to defend his case, and he is 26 and still wet behind the ears. That nick cat just a one trick pony apparently. He loves to take every subject and somehow turn it into gay unions. Again, WTFO, whats this dudes cause?

I am not feeding the trolls for good debate…and scope is a dumbass for suggesting that. I am refuting his leftist crap.

I am done playing nice with these folk.

I wish that they didn’t come on our site and sully it the way they do…but as long as they are I will be here to expose them and call out their BS.

If Scope wants to be an apologist for that type of crap that is his fault not mine.

My advice to scope is to write a diary once in a while supporting Republican or conservative positions since in his glorious 7 months here he never has.

Until then he can STFU about my style and he can definitely take his opinion of what I am the most guilty of and shove it right up his 4th point of contact.

Granted, right-wing extremists tend to operate as “lone wolves”, but instead of dealing with the problem of identifying the lone wolves from a crowd of completely benign conservative citizens, the report offers a crude, and in some ways incorrect, summation of views that can be attributed loosely to extremists and strongly to non-violent conservatives and libertarians.

Our definition of marriage is the baseline thought, the burden of proof lies with him. Anyway, he seems to not understand that what he wants is to move the reference line and if denied it, that is somehow against some sort of right…. Fruitless debate with tired research. You could go to CATO or Heritage and find enough cases against as there are for, and you do not have to go to Canada to find them. Sheesh I have better things to do.

Lastly, he will never stop until he has found all of the information he can on the internet that he can somehow use to support his case. What is the point, give him the rope and he will hang himself with it.

Don’t talk about things you don’t know.

These aren’t people who will just go away if you ignore them.

These are people who need to be confronted an taken to task for their lies.