[Batesmotel]

Originally Posted by uzimon

2x the whining

Wrong. I did some historical research on Poly Marriages.

You need to apply the rule of inverse squares.

2 wives, 4X problems
3 wives, 8X problems
4 wives, 16X problems

[JBnTX]

Originally Posted by HarlDane

If polygamy was going to end civilization, it would have been over thousands of years ago.

You guys are equating polygamy with homosexual marriage.
The two are vastly different.

Not even in the same ballpark with each other.

[Batesmotel]

Originally Posted by JBnTX

And so it begins...

Very soon it will happen here in the United States.

The floodgates have been opened and now in will pour every sick and perverted concept of marriage that anyone can imagine.

Three people, four people, animals, children.
The definition of marriage is now only limited by the human imagination, and perversion.

I said that 10 years ago and people laughed. The next big thing will be Polymorous (SP?) marriages after male-male and female-female weddings are the norm. Multi male and female partners that come and go but with the same legal protection of a wedded couple. An ever changing mix of 3, 4, 5, 6, etc male and female partners living like spouses. Sort of like a rolling swingers party with legal recognition.

It has happened in the past. Usually right before a society falls.

[RC-RAMIE]

Originally Posted by countrygun

Oh, yah, that's right plural marriage was legal until about ten years ago until the "necons" took over and outlawed it, right?"

That post was in a response about a post of getting government out of marriage.

[countrygun]

Originally Posted by RC-RAMIE

That post was in a response about a post of getting government out of marriage.

Since things like "spousal privledge/immunity", community property, alimony, become civil issues and can also, as spousal privledge, be part of legal issues it is pretty much impossible to get Government out of the business of defining what marriage is.

Since the "Government" is an extension of the will of the people and with their consent, and since something as basic as "gay" marriage fails at every turn when the people vote on it, it seems that what is actually wanted by some is Government to get VERY involved and force these"other" marriages of on a people who don't want them recognized.

If the people vote against it at the State level, the only choice left for the proponents is to overrule the people and go to Government in the name of keeping the Government out?????

Seems hypocritical to me.

[Bren]

Originally Posted by JBnTX

No, they're hedonistic savages with no concept of morality.

Technically, hedonism is a "concept of morality." Just not yours.

[Dalton Wayne]

When I was a lot younger, I lived with two girls we slept in the same bed, were intimate it was fun times, then I found the girl I married, been married for almost 40 years, but if I had to go back I wouldn't change a thing...
flame suit on

[Gundude]

Originally Posted by JBnTX

You guys are equating polygamy with homosexual marriage.
The two are vastly different.

Not even in the same ballpark with each other.

Didn't you say this?:

Originally Posted by JBnTX

The floodgates have been opened and now in will pour every sick and perverted concept of marriage that anyone can imagine.

Three people, four people, animals, children.
The definition of marriage is now only limited by the human imagination, and perversion.

Are you equating three people and four people with animals and children? Are they in the same ballpark?

[Gunhaver]

Originally Posted by GAFinch

Every single state amendment banning gay marriage has been approved by the general population at the ballot box. It's actually the pro-gay marriage laws that have been forced on people by government.

What an awful violation of your rights to have to live in a country where some areas let people do things that have absolutely no effect on you. Why, I bet you feel worse than those poor California liberals who have their rights trampled all over whenever anybody buys a gun.

[countrygun]

Originally Posted by Gunhaver

What an awful violation of your rights to have to live in a country where some areas let people do things that have absolutely no effect on you. Why, I bet you feel worse than those poor California liberals who have their rights trampled all over whenever anybody buys a gun.

Yup, what were those Founders thinking when they gave States all those powers? Didn't they know that the best way was a big Federal Government to make all decisions? Who want people to be able to make the decisions for their own States? The people are dumb they need the guidance of the Federal Government for their own good. Why don't we just abolish the States entirely.

Unless of course, the Federal Government isn't doing what YOU want then YOU will cry 'State's Rights"

[Brucev]

Marriage is one man and one woman. Civil unions? That's just a crock idea developed by the queers and such to try to normalize aberrance.

[barbedwiresmile]

Issues like these are mission-critical to the future of our civilization and I hope the republicans go out of their way to talk about these issues at the convention, on the campaign trail, and during the 'debates'.

[Ruble Noon]

Originally Posted by barbedwiresmile

Issues like these are mission-critical to the future of our civilization and I hope the republicans go out of their way to talk about these issues at the convention, on the campaign trail, and during the 'debates'.

[GAFinch]

Originally Posted by barbedwiresmile

Issues like these are mission-critical to the future of our civilization and I hope the republicans go out of their way to talk about these issues at the convention, on the campaign trail, and during the 'debates'.

Democrats and liberals are the ones who have been talking about social issues for the past few months, while most Republicans are trying to steer the main conversation to the failing economy. Doesn't mean Republicans should just sit idly by while the youth are propagandized by the far left and long-standing laws are overturned left and right by executive orders and judicial activism.

[Gunnut 45/454]

AlexHassin
Of course you wouldn't! So how many wives do you have? I know my BIL thought it was ok to have more then one! He's a Mussy by the way! And yes this was right here in the US. Thankfully my SIL devorced his ass! Now she free of the Muslim religion!

[Gundude]

Originally Posted by barbedwiresmile

Issues like these are mission-critical to the future of our civilization and I hope the republicans go out of their way to talk about these issues at the convention, on the campaign trail, and during the 'debates'.

Just try and stop them!

Countless consultants and PR people have tried and failed.

[RWBlue]

I don't care what you do to your partner in the bed room as long as I don't have to hear about it. But lets take this idea to extremes.

The idea of marriage is to benefit society by having two people or more in a permanent relationship to produce offspring and raise them in an environment where the offspring will become productive members of society, correct? The system is setup to benefit couples, correct?

So in a society where people are not staying together and raising offspring to become productive members of society, should those in a marriage still get more benefits than those who are single?

i.e.
If I marry someone should they be able to get spousal benefits on my health insurance? Life insurance is a different matter, it goes to whomever I say.

If I marry a foreigner should they be able to become a citizen, just because I marry them?

Now expand the idea, if I marry several women from outside the country should they be able to be put on my health plan and become citizens? To make is simple, lets say 6 women. This way I can stay in bed with one each night and have 1 night to myself. If one of them wants to leave after being married for several years, do they get 1/6 of the joint funds? Would a house of 5 women and 1 man be a better environment to raise kids than a single mom?

If someone says yes to my 6 women and 1 man scenario, where do we place the limits on how many women I can bring into the country? If I keep bringing in young women they can support me in my old age. What do you think a young hot foreign woman would do to attain citizenship?

[JBnTX]

Originally Posted by RWBlue

I don't care what you do to your partner in the bed room as long as I don't have to hear about it. But lets take this idea to extremes.

The idea of marriage is to benefit society by having two people or more in a permanent relationship to produce offspring and raise them in an environment where the offspring will become productive members of society, correct? The system is setup to benefit couples, correct?

So in a society where people are not staying together and raising offspring to become productive members of society, should those in a marriage still get more benefits than those who are single?

i.e.
If I marry someone should they be able to get spousal benefits on my health insurance? Life insurance is a different matter, it goes to whomever I say.

If I marry a foreigner should they be able to become a citizen, just because I marry them?

Now expand the idea, if I marry several women from outside the country should they be able to be put on my health plan and become citizens? To make is simple, lets say 6 women. This way I can stay in bed with one each night and have 1 night to myself. If one of them wants to leave after being married for several years, do they get 1/6 of the joint funds? Would a house of 5 women and 1 man be a better environment to raise kids than a single mom?

If someone says yes to my 6 women and 1 man scenario, where do we place the limits on how many women I can bring into the country? If I keep bringing in young women they can support me in my old age. What do you think a young hot foreign woman would do to attain citizenship?

Good post.

[Gunhaver]

Originally Posted by barbedwiresmile

Issues like these are mission-critical to the future of our civilization and I hope the republicans go out of their way to talk about these issues at the convention, on the campaign trail, and during the 'debates'.

Oh yes, I couldn't agree more with the second part of that statement. I hope they go waaaaay out of their way to talk about those issues. I also hope they keep bringing up gems like the magical koochie rape sperm shield, the imminent 3 way man-horse-toaster polygamous marriages that are sure to be our undoing and don't forget that birth certificate issue while they're at it. I don't quite think that one's been settled yet.

Maybe they could even bring Santorum back to warn us all of the dangers of porn. Good times.