HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » The local radio wingnut t...

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 06:07 PM

The local radio wingnut talkshow topic is: poligamy(& more) possible because of DOMA ruling.

Seriesly. They are no-joke discussing.

7 replies, 704 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 7 replies Author Time Post
Reply The local radio wingnut talkshow topic is: poligamy(& more) possible because of DOMA ruling. (Original post)
UTUSN Jun 2013 OP
corkhead Jun 2013 #1
Initech Jun 2013 #4
Turbineguy Jun 2013 #2
GeorgeGist Jun 2013 #3
Initech Jun 2013 #5
quaker bill Jun 2013 #6
Orangepeel Jun 2013 #7

Response to UTUSN (Original post)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 06:12 PM

1. all I have to say is...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to corkhead (Reply #1)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 09:22 PM

4. I'll have several dozen!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UTUSN (Original post)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 06:51 PM

2. They are probably just hopeful

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UTUSN (Original post)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 09:11 PM

3. We already have polygamy ...

its called a corporation. And don't tell me there's no fucking involved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GeorgeGist (Reply #3)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 09:24 PM

5. And when the corporations aren't busy screwing each other, they're screwing us!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UTUSN (Original post)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 09:41 PM

6. The funny thing

is that they think the supreme court changes society, when it at best responds to change which has already happened, usually 10 to 50 years after the fact, if not longer. If gay people were not getting married already, there would have been no premise for the case.

The premise for this case was that a spouse in a same sex couple had died, and the surviving spouse was getting nicked for inheritance taxes, something that a mixed gender spouse would have been exempted from.

If same sex marriages did not already exist then no member of such a couple could have been denied equal protection. In short, the ruling does not create same sex couples, it simply outlaws discrimination against them.

Of course I have always found the notion that a government, which cannot pass a budget for itself, could actually act to "defend" marriage absurd beyond all recognition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UTUSN (Original post)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 09:47 PM

7. that's because they can't count

They must have trouble telling the difference between two and more than two.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread