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

[Silhouette]

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.

You mean, the LOWER courts right? We all know where this is going. And one of those lower courts put a stay on its own decision before the ink was dry. Highly unusual. And a vote of "no confidence" on the very thing they pretend to have confidence in.

Pretty telling. There is no finality until the US Supreme Court stands up, collects all these cases and reminds activist judges in the lower courts that what they said in Windsor Opinion, pages 14-22, they actually meant. http://www.scribd.com/doc/150138202/United-States-v-Windsor

There has been no cemented establishment of a constitutional rendering at the top level of whether or not in just this one isolated case, what amounts to a cult, a minority set of deviant behaviors objectionable to the majority may dictate to the majority...and whether or not that precedent [for sure it will] be granted to any and all minority behaviors who scream "foul" that they want the majority to back off. Polygamists can claim they were "born that way". Then what?

Agreed: women voters need to know right now what they're getting into with so-called "gay marriage"...

 

[Vikrant]

I think having a mistress or two is the most practical way to go if you are thinking of having more than one woman. Some people would say there is nothing wrong with it. Some people would frown upon it. That is the way it is. You have to do what makes sense for you.

 

[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.

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"...

I'm wondering if trivializing my objections to polygamy to that degree, reducing it to a subjective visceral reaction (icky-phobia?) is a debate tactic or just a complete misreading of my post. First of all I agree marriage is an important social and cultural
phenomena. And my post was actually a reaction to Jake's comment, not the OP. I'm not sure the OP deserved a reply. I don't see the tie-in between gay marriage and polygamy. You trying to conflate the two in a non-sequiter non-linear fashion does not lead me to think the notion will have any affect on the way women vote. And believe me I do care about the issues that actually affect the way women vote. After all I am the father of two great women and a liberal, (you know, that group who fought for women's suffrage in the first place?)

Other than that it's the same old deal. Conservatives (your "ilk") trying to preserve the good old days (that never were) by denying progress to another group of human beings. Hey, if you can trivialize I can simplify.

 

[SmedlyButler]

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.

of the citizenry is more logical and rational than you and the OP.

 

[Silhouette]

I think having a mistress or two is the most practical way to go if you are thinking of having more than one woman. Some people would say there is nothing wrong with it. Some people would frown upon it. That is the way it is. You have to do what makes sense for you.

That's an interesting outlook. For Jeffrey Dahmer, killing people in serial fashion and dining on their body parts "made sense to him".

Besides, it's not about what makes sense to each individual. It's about how the middle bloc of women voters feel about their hubby cheating on them legally by taking a younger wife.

Have fun selling that one. Wonder if the LGBT cult will now start suing and threatening people who dare to speak out against polygamy?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

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

I don't care who gets married or how many. I see married people all around me, and I see singles too. And the happier ones are the singles. So if people are gluttons for punishment and wanna be unhappy, let em marry.

 

[Silhouette]

I'm wondering if trivializing my objections to polygamy to that degree, reducing it to a subjective visceral reaction (icky-phobia?) is a debate tactic or just a complete misreading of my post. First of all I agree marriage is an important social and cultural
phenomena. And my post was actually a reaction to Jake's comment, not the OP. I'm not sure the OP deserved a reply. I don't see the tie-in between gay marriage and polygamy. You trying to conflate the two in a non-sequiter non-linear fashion does not lead me to think the notion will have any affect on the way women vote. And believe me I do care about the issues that actually affect the way women vote. After all I am the father of two great women and a liberal, (you know, that group who fought for women's suffrage in the first place?)

Other than that it's the same old deal. Conservatives (your "ilk") trying to preserve the good old days (that never were) by denying progress to another group of human beings. Hey, if you can trivialize I can simplify.

You don't see the tie between gay-marriage and polygamy because in your mind you've bought the false premise that the cult of LGBT has been selling. Once you accept that LGBT are behaviors and not genetic the entire legal argument changes colors quite drastically. Because then, fundamentally [for that is how all law works and precedents are used] you have an incomplete grouping of deviant sexual behaviors, in a minority population, attempting to dictate to the majority who objects to them using the 14th Amendment.

There are no provisions currently for a minority incomplete grouping of ANY behavior protected by the 14th from majority rule [you know, democracy? May have heard of it?] If a new definition of the 14th is rendered by the US Supreme Court to cover this minority incomplete grouping of behaviors, what will be future objections to allowing other minority behaviors that the majority objects to? That they're "icky"? THAT was my point. The majority currently finds gay marriage "icky" [Yes they do, conservatives and democrats].

And so you see the problem. At least anyone else can, maybe you can't. I don't know.

Lifelong democrat my friend. That's what I am. And there are a LOT of my "ilk" in the middle.

Would you call the general folks in France "conservatives"? No, France is as liberal as it gets for a country besides Sweden and some other of the nordic countries. Yet as liberal as France is, here is what happened just last year in Paris:

 

[JakeStarkey]

I think having a mistress or two is the most practical way to go if you are thinking of having more than one woman. Some people would say there is nothing wrong with it. Some people would frown upon it. That is the way it is. You have to do what makes sense for you.

That's an interesting outlook. For Jeffrey Dahmer, killing people in serial fashion and dining on their body parts "made sense to him".

Besides, it's not about what makes sense to each individual. It's about how the middle bloc of women voters feel about their hubby cheating on them legally by taking a younger wife.

Have fun selling that one. Wonder if the LGBT cult will now start suing and threatening people who dare to speak out against polygamy?

false equivalency

the only cult is that of hetero-fascism

twenty court rulings and the majority of America disagree with you

step along

 

[Montrovant]

I think having a mistress or two is the most practical way to go if you are thinking of having more than one woman. Some people would say there is nothing wrong with it. Some people would frown upon it. That is the way it is. You have to do what makes sense for you.

That's an interesting outlook. For Jeffrey Dahmer, killing people in serial fashion and dining on their body parts "made sense to him".

Besides, it's not about what makes sense to each individual. It's about how the middle bloc of women voters feel about their hubby cheating on them legally by taking a younger wife.

Have fun selling that one. Wonder if the LGBT cult will now start suing and threatening people who dare to speak out against polygamy?

Can it be cheating if it is consensual? Do you think polygamous marriage will happen without the consent of all parties involved, or do you think women voters expect polygamous marriage, if it becomes legal, to happen without the consent of all parties involved?

 

[Silhouette]

Can it be cheating if it is consensual? Do you think polygamous marriage will happen without the consent of all parties involved, or do you think women voters expect polygamous marriage, if it becomes legal, to happen without the consent of all parties involved?

It doesn't matter if it's consensual or not. No, polygamy will happen with the consent of all people involved if gay marriage passes.

Of course that's not the point of this thread is it? And dance around that point you folks sure do. The POINT OF THIS THREAD IS WHETHER OR NOT MIDDLE BLOC WOMENS' VOTES CAN BE COUNTED ON BY THE DEMOCRAT PARTY IF THEY LEARN THAT GAY MARRIAGE = POLYGAMY IN LEGAL-PRECEDENT FACT.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

I think in time the courts will have to allow polygamy. I simply don't see how you can deny the rights of individuals to enter into a marriage now that we have redefined the meaning of marriage.

 

[Silhouette]

I think in time the courts will have to allow polygamy. I simply don't see how you can deny the rights of individuals to enter into a marriage now that we have redefined the meaning of marriage.

OK, now that we have re-established the premise of the OP...

What do you think open-media advertisement of that as FACT right now would do to the womens' vote in the middle bloc just left of center? Not what you think. Not what I think. Not what any single poster on this board thinks. But instead, what the general trend in womens' votes would be in the middle bloc?????

 

[September]

There is no problem with polygamy at all, whether its a man with two wives or a woman with two husbands. Sexually it can be very satisfying.

 

[Silhouette]

There is no problem with polygamy at all, whether its a man with two wives or a woman with two husbands. Sexually it can be very satisfying.

I once had a heroin addict desribe to me the sensation of being loaded up with dope. They described it as "very satifying".

So are you going to answer the question or dodge it like everyone else so far? What will the immediate knowledge of the FACT that gay marriage sets an undeniable precedent for polygamy's swift victory in courts MEAN to middle women voters; as far as the democrats should take notice of?

Answer or dodge. I'll wait.

 

[September]

There is no problem with polygamy at all, whether its a man with two wives or a woman with two husbands. Sexually it can be very satisfying.

I once had a heroin addict desribe to me the sensation of being loaded up with dope. They described it as "very satifying".

That's a terrible analogy. If you wanna forbid yourself from experiencing a threesome with two hot women then by all means, restrict yourself. That type of experience is likely to be damn near impossible for you anyway

So are you going to answer the question or dodge it like everyone else so far? What will the immediate knowledge of the FACT that gay marriage sets an undeniable precedent for polygamy's swift victory in courts MEAN to middle women voters; as far as the democrats should take notice of?

Answer or dodge. I'll wait.

It means that if they aren't homosexual or polygamous, than they should direct their focus onto more meaningful issues in their lives that are relevant to their own lifestyle, so that they don't end up like you- a "straight" old man who can't stop thinking about and talking about homosexuality and your obsession with deep anal exploration. Every time you close your eyes you think about male on male butt sex. Deep inside. With the balls hangin' out.

You're freaking old dude. Don't you have better things to do than to be constantly bringing up the wonders of sodomy?

 

[JakeStarkey]

This is not a GOP or a Donkey issue, Sil.

It is a human issue.

Women support marriage equality, and, I suspect, will generally say polygamy is up to adults, and if a Warren Jeff's situation occurs: cut off his balls.

 

[Silhouette]

It means that if they aren't homosexual or polygamous, than they should direct their focus onto more meaningful issues in their lives that are relevant to their own lifestyle

But in the real world, polygamy would affect them. And even if you insist that it wouldn't or somehow could emperically prove that it wouldn't, that's not what's important with the question of this thread..

You're a big fan of "personal feelings" being the rule. Consider this huge bloc of voters, middle women [the ones that overwhelmingly show up to the polls and vote as opposed to other demographics on both sides], and how they feel about polygamy being legalized. THAT is how they will vote in spite of anything you feel or say or anything I feel or say.

And given that, how do you suppose they'll vote? You're nudging closer, giving the appearance of having answered the question without actually answering it.

 

[Silhouette]

This is not a GOP or a Donkey issue, Sil.

It is a human issue.

Women support marriage equality, and, I suspect, will generally say polygamy is up to adults, and if a Warren Jeff's situation occurs: cut off his balls.

Ha! Caught in a bald-faced lie. I'd argue that Ashtara would be delusional enough to believe that they'd do that. But you know better. You know the answer is that women who are married, average, hardworking blue-collar workers or wives of blue collar workers or both would NEVER nudge polygamy to legal status by who they support at the polls.

Caught!

 

[JakeStarkey]

I once had a heroin addict desribe to me the sensation of being loaded up with dope. They described it as "very satifying".

as somehow a condemnation of polygamy.

Look up 'false equivalency.'

 

[JakeStarkey]

Caught in a bald-faced lie.

Horse shit. (1) Most women as you well know support marriage equality. (2) No reason exists for women to be upset by what consenting adults do.

Step along.