"Why not polygamous marriage?"

[tyr_13]

Oh, yes s/he did.I object to the inclusion of assault in the category of actions that I assert are protected by the principle of freedom of association.

No, that isn't the same as equating them. They are all listed in the laws you are criticizing. You trying to spin that and put it on crimresearch in order to avoid answering the questions raised is dishonest. It's an obvious dodge, an excuse to ignore someone you are failing to defend your position to.

The ACLU opposed "hate crime" enhancements of laws against assault. Assault is an observable fact. Assertions of motivation involve mind reading.

Many laws take into account state of mind and motivation.

Note the passive voice. You infer.

You assert an awful lot and then ignore the arguments presented with hand waves and twisting, yet you criticize my passive voice. Put me on ignore for it then. Yes I infer obviously. I don't tend to state what should be obvious to everyone about what I'm saying, but I do point out what is obvious to everyone else about what you're saying.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

...I do point out what is obvious to everyone else about what you're saying.

Why?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

You assert an awful lot and then ignore the arguments presented with hand waves and twisting...

What did I ignore?

Except that the post to which you replied by citing government anti-discrimination, specifically named mutually consensual acts between people, nothing about freedom of contracts. So yes, by you putting discrimination in that specific category, you were de facto saying that the parties involved (perpetrator and victim), both consented.

How is "to which you replied by citing government anti-discrimination, specifically named mutually consensual acts between people, nothing about freedom of contracts..." ignoring the argument. "Freedom of contract" is all about guaranteeing "mutually consensual acts". There is no "perpetrator" nor a "victim" when one person refuses to enter into an agreement with someone else. Otherwise, I victimized six billion people yesterday.

 

[keale]

Multiple mothers-in-law.

That right there is more than enough reason to keep it illegal. One mother in law is one too many any more is unthinkable.

 

[Rasmus]

That right there is more than enough reason to keep it illegal. One mother in law is one too many any more is unthinkable.

Simple: Marry siblings.

 

[tyr_13]

What did I ignore?How is "to which you replied by citing government anti-discrimination, specifically named mutually consensual acts between people, nothing about freedom of contracts..." ignoring the argument. "Freedom of contract" is all about guaranteeing "mutually consensual acts". There is no "perpetrator" nor a "victim" when one person refuses to enter into an agreement with someone else. Otherwise, I victimized six billion people yesterday.

Here.

Speaking of getting out in the real world, care to produce some real world proof for your assertions? Something to fill in that excluded middle fallacy you keep parroting?

You know, a real court that has accepted your 'freedom of association' defense for the crime of discrimination in firing, housing, or assaulting someone because of their race, religion, gender, et al?

And don't waste my time with some StormFront 'freeman/sovereign citizen' CT fantasy.

I'll not engage your purposefully obtuse reasoning if you can't back it.

 

[BStrong]

Perhaps because it's hard enough to keep one spouse happy, let alone a harem.

^Bingo!^

The real answer? who gives a **** as long as it's consenting adults paying their own way.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

The real answer? who gives a **** as long as it's consenting adults paying their own way.

Because inside each of us, to varying degrees, is the joy in persecuting others. All we need is a halo to put over our inner sadist, and we're free to lynch without conscience.