It's Time to Talk About Polygamy, the Woman's Vote & Political Strategy

[Silhouette]

If gay marriage succeeds in setting the new precedent for interpretation of the 14th Amendment to incude minor groupings of behaviors objectionable to the majority as having "special protection" [and the complete eventual destruction of American democratic rule], polygamy will be the very next victory at the Supreme Court level.

Once they allow one set of incomplete behavioral groupings a certain "right", that right cannot be arbitrarily denied other incomplete behavioral groupings...and so on... Think of lady justice with the blindfold on.

So, with all the grappling going on for the women's vote it seems all one would have to do is introduce the fact that polygamy is right around the corner. I wonder what regular old gals will be thinking when that fact is made implicitly clear to them? Most women I know would probably not welcome a younger, prettier wife in their home legally by their husband. But some have accused me of being behind the times. So maybe I'm wrong about that?

Assuming I'm not though, democrats have essentially become siamese twins with the LGBT cult movement. I wonder....hmmm.... [if I need to fill in the blanks for you, you shouldn't be involved in political strategy and should get a job flipping hamburgers or something..]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...wins-gay-legal-challenges-simple-as-that.html

 

[TheOldSchool]

Stop thinking so much about guys butts sillyhouette. You'll be much happier

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil, Americans as a majority, and a super majority, approve marriage equality; there is no minor grouping of objectionable behaviors that include such marriage.

Polygamy is an interesting discussion.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The 10th Circuit Court just threw out Utah's appeal.

 

[Silhouette]

To be expected. They didn't want to have to clean up the messes in Windsor. That will have to be done at the highest level. In hindsight that was the only thing they could do.

Meanwhile, let me interpret what you said in your previous post:

You said:

Sil, Americans as a majority, and a super majority, approve marriage equality; there is no minor grouping of objectionable behaviors that include such marriage.

Polygamy is an interesting discussion.

"Polygamy is an interesting discussion". ie; "Jake doesn't want to talk about it right now for all the reasons stated in the OP".

 

[Silhouette]

Stop thinking so much about guys butts sillyhouette. You'll be much happier

Can't help it. I think about the gay artificial-vagina every time I remember my dead family friend, felled by AIDS.

 

[Silhouette]

Just as I thought. The 10th is not allowing gay marriages.

 

[PratchettFan]

It is my opinion that the government should not be telling consenting adults how to live their lives. So long as they continue to be in the marriage business (and I think they should not) then they should not discriminate against anyone capable of entering into a contract. For a contract is all marriage is.

The problem with prohibitions is that it forces people to live undercover. This does not protect people, it prevents them from seeking help. It is counterproductive and wrong.

 

[Silhouette]

It is my opinion that the government should not be telling consenting adults how to live their lives. So long as they continue to be in the marriage business (and I think they should not) then they should not discriminate against anyone capable of entering into a contract. For a contract is all marriage is.

The problem with prohibitions is that it forces people to live undercover. This does not protect people, it prevents them from seeking help. It is counterproductive and wrong.

Yeah yeah. We get it. That's not the question here. I know your camp wants marriage to be a free-for-all, despite the fact that it is an institution primarily and foremost for the benefit of the best environment to raise children in...

The question of this thread is "how will women vote once they know and are told for a fact that polygamy is a legal first cousin to gay marriage and will be a fact within 5 years or less if gay marriage exploits the legal system to qualify "as race" instead of as behavior...which is really what they are?"

 

[JakeStarkey]

Silhouette talks out of the butthole with, "Polygamy is an interesting discussion" and Jake doesn't want to talk about it right now for all the reasons stated in the OP.

Sil does not want to accept the 10th's 108 page decision guts the loser's interp of Windsor.

Tough, Sil, to be you today.

 

[September]

I support polygamy

FF&M or MM&F or FFF or MMM... etc


As long they are all satisfied, why must people like Silhouette attempt to stand in the way? 'Fraid we're gonna twist this country's culture into a mockery of everything it once stood for?

Good.

 

[Silhouette]

Silhouette talks out of the butthole with, "Polygamy is an interesting discussion" and Jake doesn't want to talk about it right now for all the reasons stated in the OP.

Sil does not want to accept the 10th's 108 page decision guts the loser's interp of Windsor.

Tough, Sil, to be you today.

Thanks for the ad hominem, again. I can always tell when you're nervous.

Please quote where their decision "guts" a higher court than themselves. Also, explain why if they are so adamantly pro-gay marriage at the 10th, why they stopped it cold in its tracks, again, before the ink was even dry on their own decision?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...gay-marriage-then-stays-its-own-decision.html

Care to discuss how women will vote on which party they feel backs the LGBT cult once they are certain it also means polygamy? No, didn't think so....resume ad hominems...

 

[Silhouette]

I support polygamy

FF&M or MM&F or FFF or MMM... etc


As long they are all satisfied, why must people like Silhouette attempt to stand in the way? 'Fraid we're gonna twist this country's culture into a mockery of everything it once stood for?

Good.

It's not a question of whether you or I do or don't support all the various forms of not "a man and a woman" you can try to pack into the word "marriage". It's a question of whether or not 100s of millinos of the most notoriously reliable voters [women] will support the democrats once they learn the logical equation of LGBT platform = democratic platform = polygamy.

How do you suppose the average woman [not your twisted self, but the millions who are wholly unlike you] will tend to vote if they know how they vote may in fact mean the certainty of polygamy [sharing their husband with a younger, prettier, fresher wife]?

 

[SmedlyButler]

Sil, Americans as a majority, and a super majority, approve marriage equality; there is no minor grouping of objectionable behaviors that include such marriage.

Polygamy is an interesting discussion.

Actually it is an interesting discussion now that you mention it. Myself I don't worry too much about the "sanctity" of marriage as an institution. Unless you are harnessed to biblical "morals", gay or straight, if you think you love someone enough to spend he rest of your life with them (or suffer the inevitable negative consequences of d-i-v-o-r-c-e if that is the unfortunate outcome) then fine by me. I'm in the "you shouldn't need an ancient text and fear of Hell to lead a moral life" column. Aren't there biblical injunctions against Christian divorce by the way?

Anyway, in the context of women's rights, should a women have the right to marry someone she loves even if he is already married? I don't think I've actually spent much time thinking about it from a morals viewpoint. I'm actually going to spend a little time contemplating that. Polygamy wasn't that uncommon in the Bible was it?

My problem with polygamy is that historically l believe it has led to or exacerbated the subjugation of women in cultures where it has been accepted. It's one of the cornerstones of hyper-Patriarchal societies. This alone is enough of a reason for me to justify it being verboten. But it is an interesting conversation.

 

[Silhouette]

Sil, Americans as a majority, and a super majority, approve marriage equality; there is no minor grouping of objectionable behaviors that include such marriage.

Polygamy is an interesting discussion.

Actually it is an interesting discussion now that you mention it. Myself I don't worry too much about the "sanctity" of marriage as an institution. Unless you are harnessed to biblical "morals", gay or straight, if you think you love someone enough to spend he rest of your life with them (or suffer the inevitable negative consequences of d-i-v-o-r-c-e if that is the unfortunate outcome) then fine by me. I'm in the "you shouldn't need an ancient text and fear of Hell to lead a moral life" column. Aren't there biblical injunctions against Christian divorce by the way?

Anyway, in the context of women's rights, should a women have the right to marry someone she loves even if he is already married? I don't think I've actually spent much time thinking about it from a morals viewpoint. I'm actually going to spend a little time contemplating that. Polygamy wasn't that uncommon in the Bible was it?

My problem with polygamy is that historically l believe it has led to or exacerbated the subjugation of women in cultures where it has been accepted. It's one of the cornerstones of hyper-Patriarchal societies. This alone is enough of a reason for me to justify it being verboten. But it is an interesting conversation.

Once again we argue a false premise: that marriage is about adults in an isolated environment.

It isn't. It is an institution foremost about children and in a broader social context because society inherits the fallout from anything it sanctions as "married" by virtue of the fact that the children raised in 'whatever' environment grow up and become our next set of role models.

And as to that 'whatever' environment, see the photo I've posted in other threads recently of the gay pride parade. What they're proud of in public in front of kids. One can only imagine then what they would be 'proud' of behind closed doors in front of kids.

But this thread is about not that even. It's about how people think women will vote when they associate gay marriage with polygamy marriage. And the fact that both fall under the umbrella of "one of the main democrat platforms". Your argument is essentially that "polygamy is icky and objectionable to the majority". The same exact argument is true about gay marriage; only then your ilk says that minorities rule in that situation...somehow...based on an arbitrary interpretation of the majority having to approve of and sanction via marriage "just some icky behaviors but not others"...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Silhouette talks out of the butthole with, "Polygamy is an interesting discussion" and Jake doesn't want to talk about it right now for all the reasons stated in the OP.

Sil does not want to accept the 10th's 108 page decision guts the loser's interp of Windsor.

Tough, Sil, to be you today.

Thanks for the ad hominem, again. I can always tell when you're nervous.

Please quote where their decision "guts" a higher court than themselves. Also, explain why if they are so adamantly pro-gay marriage at the 10th, why they stopped it cold in its tracks, again, before the ink was even dry on their own decision?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...gay-marriage-then-stays-its-own-decision.html

Care to discuss how women will vote on which party they feel backs the LGBT cult once they are certain it also means polygamy? No, didn't think so....resume ad hominems...

You ad hom then have the babyishness to cry when the favor is returned? I will treat you exactly as you act: adult or ad hom.

Your interp of Windsor is not being accepted by the courts because it is wrong.

The cult of hetero-fascism is real, not LGBT.

The 10th is playing it carefully. Throwing out the appeal is stopping the appeal in its tracks not the case. The court was correct in letting the stay remain in place.

Now if the appellants go for an entire count of the court, I think that most likely it will be denied flatly.

That leaves it to SCOTUS, as it should.

Polygamy and none of your other foolishness has anything to do with this.

Once more, stay in reality and stop being silly with non-existent issues.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Silhouette talks out of the butthole with, "Polygamy is an interesting discussion" and Jake doesn't want to talk about it right now for all the reasons stated in the OP.

Sil does not want to accept the 10th's 108 page decision guts the loser's interp of Windsor.

Tough, Sil, to be you today.

Thanks for the ad hominem, again. I can always tell when you're nervous.

Please quote where their decision "guts" a higher court than themselves. Also, explain why if they are so adamantly pro-gay marriage at the 10th, why they stopped it cold in its tracks, again, before the ink was even dry on their own decision?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...gay-marriage-then-stays-its-own-decision.html

Care to discuss how women will vote on which party they feel backs the LGBT cult once they are certain it also means polygamy? No, didn't think so....resume ad hominems...

You ad hom then have the babyishness to cry when the favor is returned? I will treat you exactly as you act: adult or ad hom.

Your interp of Windsor is not being accepted by the courts because it is wrong. You have explained your inter over and over, and no one is buying it. Tough.

The cult of hetero-fascism is real, not LGBT.

Throwing out the appeal is stopping the appeal in its tracks, not the case. The 10th is playing it carefully. The court was correct in letting the stay remain in place.

Now if the appellants go for an entire count of the court, I think that most likely it will be denied flatly.

That leaves it to SCOTUS, as it should.

Polygamy and none of your other foolishness has anything to do with this.

Once more, stay in reality and stop being silly with non-existent issues. Stop your ad homs, stop your snideness.

 

[Silhouette]

..The 10th is playing it carefully. Throwing out the appeal is stopping the appeal in its tracks not the case. The court was correct in letting the stay remain in place.

Now if the appellants go for an entire count of the court, I think that most likely it will be denied flatly.

That leaves it to SCOTUS, as it should.

Polygamy and none of your other foolishness has anything to do with this.

Once more, stay in reality and stop being silly with non-existent issues.

No, the 10th has just given a vote of "no confidence" to gay marriage by virtue of the fact that they placed a stay on their own decision! Apparently they weren't that impressed with the urgent nature of gays claiming they need to get access to orphans via marria...er...um...I mean "need to validate their relationships in front of their kids"..

"No confidence." That's what the 10th just said aloud to anyone with a brain.

Since you are a lawyer, you know full well how precedent and blind justice work. You know for a fact that the Brown family from Utah, now in Nevada are going to use the precedent to make polygamy on the same legal status as "gay marriage".

Now get on with the topic. How do you think women will vote when they are appraised of what I just said?

It's OK. It's really a rhetorical question because both you and I and everyone else knows the answer to that absurdly obvious question.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Polygamy is a naturally occurring phenomenon, whilst Gaydom is not, it's a mental disorder or genetic defect (or both on some occassions).

If Gaydom can be legalized, so can Polygamy.

 

[Blackrook]

Now that the courts have declared that same-sex marriage is mandated by the equal protection clause, the same argument will be made in favor of polygamous marriage.

Add to that mix the First Amendment claims of Muslims and fundamentalist Mormons who believe as a tenet of their religion that they are entitled to marry more than one woman.

Polygamous marriage is no more than five years away, maybe less.