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

[gtarguy921]

Exactly..... and exactly why the opposition to gay marriage is inevitably doomed to fail.

Lie about it 'til the world looks flat. The fact is gay marriage comes down to consenting adults, choosing to live their lives as they see fit, in a manner that in NO WAY interferes with anyone else's personal freedom to do the same.

Every argument against it is a lame excuse to push people around, instead of just minding your own damn business.

 

[WinterBorn]

Montrovant, you nuance too much: I don't know if women will accept polygamy in voting, I think most of them just don't care.

Sil is unhappy because folks don't take her opinions as fiat, that's all.

So....instead of doing the prudent thing and laying low, you're deciding on making that snowball of intellectual dishonesty grow and grow and grow...



So that presents two possibilities about you Jake.

1. You're a collosal, habitual liar.

2. You are so out of touch with planet earth that you need a spacesuit.


See, my problem with you pretending to not know how women in the middle bloc will vote on polygamy/gay marriage platforms/politicians is that you're normally intelligent. So I'm putting my vote down with "liar".

Go to any grocery store, market, beauty parlor or school where normal married frumpy women congregate. Look around. Ask yourself HONESTLY how many of those women will support a platform that includes polygamy/having to share their husband with a younger/prettier wife.

The acceptance of polygamy does not mean husbands are going to all of a sudden start taking extra wives, lmao. No, many men are weak and pathetic and hardly capable of handling/ satisfying one woman.

And what is to prevent one dominant woman from having multiple husbands?

I'm not an expert on polygamy, but I have a plenty of experience with polyamory. The difference is that polygamy is about being married to more than one person, and polyamory is about loving more than one.

And yes, Ashtara, there are plenty of ploy couples where the wife has more "partners". This is especially true in those of middle age or older.

But most poly couples are both enjoying extra partners. It is not swinging, per se, because it is usually not done in a group setting. It is a way for a couple to maintain a stable relationship and still enjoy the pleasure of other romantic partners. It is also typically not about "one-night-stands".

 

[Silhouette]

I'm not an expert on polygamy, but I have a plenty of experience with polyamory. The difference is that polygamy is about being married to more than one person, and polyamory is about loving more than one.

And yes, Ashtara, there are plenty of ploy couples where the wife has more "partners". This is especially true in those of middle age or older.

But most poly couples are both enjoying extra partners. It is not swinging, per se, because it is usually not done in a group setting. It is a way for a couple to maintain a stable relationship and still enjoy the pleasure of other romantic partners. It is also typically not about "one-night-stands".

And what percentage of US middle bloc women voters do you believe will support this stance at the polls in 2014 & 2016?

 

[WinterBorn]

I'm not an expert on polygamy, but I have a plenty of experience with polyamory. The difference is that polygamy is about being married to more than one person, and polyamory is about loving more than one.

And yes, Ashtara, there are plenty of ploy couples where the wife has more "partners". This is especially true in those of middle age or older.

But most poly couples are both enjoying extra partners. It is not swinging, per se, because it is usually not done in a group setting. It is a way for a couple to maintain a stable relationship and still enjoy the pleasure of other romantic partners. It is also typically not about "one-night-stands".

And what percentage of US middle bloc women voters do you believe will support this stance at the polls in 2014 & 2016?

I doubt there is any way to measure a voting bloc by romantic lifestyle. There are plenty who approve but do not participate. Then there are those who loudly condemn it, but participate in the activities.

 

[Silhouette]

I'm not an expert on polygamy, but I have a plenty of experience with polyamory. The difference is that polygamy is about being married to more than one person, and polyamory is about loving more than one.

And yes, Ashtara, there are plenty of ploy couples where the wife has more "partners". This is especially true in those of middle age or older.

But most poly couples are both enjoying extra partners. It is not swinging, per se, because it is usually not done in a group setting. It is a way for a couple to maintain a stable relationship and still enjoy the pleasure of other romantic partners. It is also typically not about "one-night-stands".

And what percentage of US middle bloc women voters do you believe will support this stance at the polls in 2014 & 2016?

I doubt there is any way to measure a voting bloc by romantic lifestyle. There are plenty who approve but do not participate. Then there are those who loudly condemn it, but participate in the activities.

I'm looking for a number between 0-100. Go ahead when you're ready to throw it out there.

 

[WinterBorn]

And what percentage of US middle bloc women voters do you believe will support this stance at the polls in 2014 & 2016?

I doubt there is any way to measure a voting bloc by romantic lifestyle. There are plenty who approve but do not participate. Then there are those who loudly condemn it, but participate in the activities.

I'm looking for a number between 0-100. Go ahead when you're ready to throw it out there.

Keep looking. As I said, I doubt there is any way to measure such things. People tend to be discreet about these kids of relationships. People who do not have a problem with such relationships, but do not participate in them also don't discuss them much.

I do not worry about the masses. I live my life as I see fit.

 

[Silhouette]

I doubt there is any way to measure a voting bloc by romantic lifestyle. There are plenty who approve but do not participate. Then there are those who loudly condemn it, but participate in the activities.

I'm looking for a number between 0-100. Go ahead when you're ready to throw it out there.

Keep looking. As I said, I doubt there is any way to measure such things. People tend to be discreet about these kids of relationships. People who do not have a problem with such relationships, but do not participate in them also don't discuss them much.

I do not worry about the masses. I live my life as I see fit.

This isn't a question about you. It's a question about how the masses VOTE. And political strategy. You may want to check the title of the thread and respond with a number between 0-100%.

 

[WinterBorn]

I'm looking for a number between 0-100. Go ahead when you're ready to throw it out there.

Keep looking. As I said, I doubt there is any way to measure such things. People tend to be discreet about these kids of relationships. People who do not have a problem with such relationships, but do not participate in them also don't discuss them much.

I do not worry about the masses. I live my life as I see fit.

This isn't a question about you. It's a question about how the masses VOTE. And political strategy. You may want to check the title of the thread and respond with a number between 0-100%.

You may want to recheck my comments. There is no way to determine the number of voters who will agree with, participate in, or disagree with polygamy. Anyone who claims to know how many voters will do so it full of bovine feces.

 

[Silhouette]

You may want to recheck my comments. There is no way to determine the number of voters who will agree with, participate in, or disagree with polygamy. Anyone who claims to know how many voters will do so it full of bovine feces.

I'm not asking you to determine the exact amount of middle bloc women who will resist going along with what essentially is a polygamy platform party. I'm asking you for your best guess: your ballpark estimate.

Again, 0-100%. Either you're willing to take a stab at it or your utilizing a diversion because you have a decent hunch and are not willing to write it here at this thread.

 

[WinterBorn]

You may want to recheck my comments. There is no way to determine the number of voters who will agree with, participate in, or disagree with polygamy. Anyone who claims to know how many voters will do so it full of bovine feces.

I'm not asking you to determine the exact amount of middle bloc women who will resist going along with what essentially is a polygamy platform party. I'm asking you for your best guess: your ballpark estimate.

Again, 0-100%. Either you're willing to take a stab at it or your utilizing a diversion because you have a decent hunch and are not willing to write it here at this thread.

Or because I came here to add some info about the poly world, and I am unconcerned about the voting bloc.

 

[Silhouette]

I'm not asking you to determine the exact amount of middle bloc women who will resist going along with what essentially is a polygamy platform party. I'm asking you for your best guess: your ballpark estimate.

Again, 0-100%. Either you're willing to take a stab at it or your utilizing a diversion because you have a decent hunch and are not willing to write it here at this thread.

Or because I came here to add some info about the poly world, and I am unconcerned about the voting bloc.

Or you know what the title of the thread implies and you're pretending to talk about polygamy. Your lie is beginning to show. Before it's fully exposed, care to take a ballpark at the percentage of middle bloc women voters who will turn their back on a party whose platform de facto = polygamy?

Not taking a ballpark at that number means you're afraid to. Plain and simple. And I know the reason why..

 

[WinterBorn]

I'm not asking you to determine the exact amount of middle bloc women who will resist going along with what essentially is a polygamy platform party. I'm asking you for your best guess: your ballpark estimate.

Again, 0-100%. Either you're willing to take a stab at it or your utilizing a diversion because you have a decent hunch and are not willing to write it here at this thread.

Or because I came here to add some info about the poly world, and I am unconcerned about the voting bloc.

Or you know what the title of the thread implies and you're pretending to talk about polygamy. Your lie is beginning to show. Before it's fully exposed, care to take a ballpark at the percentage of middle bloc women voters who will turn their back on a party whose platform de facto = polygamy?

Not taking a ballpark at that number means you're afraid to. Plain and simple. And I know the reason why..

My giving you a number seems to be very important to you. Why is that?

I have already stated that I do not believe any number stated could be anything more than a wild guess.

I did indeed show up here to add to the information about polygamy and the poly communities. If you think you know something, speak up. I have no agenda. And i am also not lying.

 

[Montrovant]

I'm not asking you to determine the exact amount of middle bloc women who will resist going along with what essentially is a polygamy platform party. I'm asking you for your best guess: your ballpark estimate.

Again, 0-100%. Either you're willing to take a stab at it or your utilizing a diversion because you have a decent hunch and are not willing to write it here at this thread.

Or because I came here to add some info about the poly world, and I am unconcerned about the voting bloc.

Or you know what the title of the thread implies and you're pretending to talk about polygamy. Your lie is beginning to show. Before it's fully exposed, care to take a ballpark at the percentage of middle bloc women voters who will turn their back on a party whose platform de facto = polygamy?

Not taking a ballpark at that number means you're afraid to. Plain and simple. And I know the reason why..

You have an amazing ability to know what other posters are thinking outside of what they post.

 

[Silhouette]

You have an amazing ability to know what other posters are thinking outside of what they post.

& y'all have an amazing ability to dodge the question.

What percentage of middle bloc women voters do YOU think will support a party that will lead to polygamy-marriage in the next 5 years?

 

[Montrovant]

You have an amazing ability to know what other posters are thinking outside of what they post.

& y'all have an amazing ability to dodge the question.

What percentage of middle bloc women voters do YOU think will support a party that will lead to polygamy-marriage in the next 5 years?

I haven't the slightest clue.

Then again, I'm not in any way convinced that polygamy will be legalized in the next 5 years, which kind of renders the question moot.

 

[Silhouette]

I haven't the slightest clue.

Then again, I'm not in any way convinced that polygamy will be legalized in the next 5 years, which kind of renders the question moot.

OK, well here are some folks who disagree with you:

Joe Darger, a man from Utah who has three wives, said the court 'has taken a step in correcting some inequality, and that's certainly something that’s going to trickle down and impact us'.


Anita Wagner Illig, a leading polygamy activist as head of the group Practical Polyamory, told U.S. News & World Report that gay-rights campaigners had set a welcome precedent.


'We polyamorists are grateful to our brothers and sisters for blazing the marriage equality trail,' she said.


'I would absolutely want to seek multi-partner marriage - it would eliminate a common challenge polyamorists face when two [people] are legally married and others in their group relationships aren't part of that marriage.' Polygamists welcome Supreme Court rulings on gay marriage predicting relationships with multiple people will be next | Mail Online

Emboldened by Justice Anthony Kennedy's sharp rebuke of our side, liberals aren't even bothering to hide the rest of their agenda. Polygamists popped the corked on a little champagne of their own after Wednesday's rulings, as they wait their turn for nationwide acceptance.

"We're very happy with it," said Joe Darger, a Utah polygamist, "I think [the court] has taken a step in correcting some inequality, and that's certainly something that's going to trickle down and impact us... I think the government needs to now recognize that we have a right to live free as much as anyone else." Proponents of "plural marriages" are riding the homosexual movement's wave of success all the way to legitimacy. They're using the same playbook, the same sound bites - and so far, the Democratic Party seems surprisingly open to the idea. After all, who are we to say that two or three or nine consenting adults shouldn't be able to make the same commitment? Love is love, right? Polygamists thrilled by Supreme Court?s gay ?marriage? rulings | Opinion | LifeSite

Once the natural limits that inhere in the relationship between a man and a woman can no longer sustain the definition of marriage, the conclusion that follows is that any grouping of adults would have an equal claim to marriage. See, e.g. , Jonathan Turley, One Big, Happy Polygamous Family , NY Times, July 21, 2011, at A27 (“[Polygamists] want to be allowed to create a loving family according to the values of their faith.”).”

The article that Cuccinelli and Zoeller cite is a July 2011 Op-Ed in The New York Times authored by Jonathan Turley, a law professor at The George Washington University Law School, which argues that polygamy should be decriminalized. In Supreme Court Brief, Ken Cuccinelli Warned Of A Slippery Slope From Gay Marriage To Polygamy - ABC News

Wednesday's landmark Supreme Court decisions on gay marriage have ushered in optimism for more than just the gay and lesbian community: Polygamists are also reading hope into the fine print....

,...Anne Wilde, a Mormon fundamentalist and founder of the polygamist rights organization, Principle Rights Coalition, is hopeful that these decisions represent movement towards the decriminalization of polygamy.

"I think it's a step in the right direction," she says. "As consenting adults, we have a right to form our families as we see fit as long as there are no other crimes involved."

Despite their contrasting opinions on other issues, advocates both for and against polygamy view these two rulings as instrumental in opening the floodgates for plural marriages. Polygamists find promise in Supreme Court decisions

Stanley Kurtz made that argument nearly ten years ago in the Weekly Standard, and it got brought up again in several briefs filed this week with the Supreme Court by anti-gay marriage advocates. It goes like this: if the purpose of marriage isn’t to produce children in traditional one-mom, one-dad homes, if it’s just a legal arrangement between folks who really like each other, what basis can there be to deny triads and quads who want legal recognition of multiple-partner marriages?

Actually, yeah—why are polyamorous marriages between consenting adults illegal?

“Kurtz was right for the most part,” Anita Wagner Illig, a polyamorous-relationships advocate who runs the Practical Polyamory website, told me in an email. “Legalizing same-sex marriage creates a legal precedent where there can be no valid legal premise for denying marriage to more than two people who wish to marry each other… After Gay Marriage, Why Not Polygamy? | VICE United States

 

[Montrovant]

Whether or not polygamous marriage will become legal at some point is a far different question than whether it will become legal within 5 years.

Gay marriage is not yet legal throughout the country, and it's been more than a decade since the first state legalized it. Why, if that is taking as long as it is to gain acceptance across the nation, do you think polygamy will gain acceptance so much faster?

 

[Silhouette]

Whether or not polygamous marriage will become legal at some point is a far different question than whether it will become legal within 5 years.

Gay marriage is not yet legal throughout the country, and it's been more than a decade since the first state legalized it. Why, if that is taking as long as it is to gain acceptance across the nation, do you think polygamy will gain acceptance so much faster?

There are several thousand polygamist clusters, some with high powered constituitonal attorneys, like Jonathan Turley, waiting to appeal their claims INSTANTLY upon the proclamation that the 14th applies anew to sexual orientation-behaviors. Like they argue in the quotes in my last post, the precedent of dissolving the traditional nuclear family cannot exclude others "in love". The polygamists in essence are waiting in the wings for the cult of LGBT to set the precedent at the highest federal level with the blessing of the US Supreme Court. Once the skids have been greased all the way down the length of the chute, polygamy will follow after the log jam has been completely cleared for them already by the cult of LGBT. It will literally happen overnight.

Period. This is what everyone warned about and legal scholars knew and know for a fact is the case. There is no such thing as a mythical slippery slope. It is a factual one.

And that doesn't even begin to address how dangerous to the American legal system and democracy itself setting a precedent that a minority set of behaviors that are objectionable to the majority get to dictate to them. http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...wins-gay-legal-challenges-simple-as-that.html As we've already seen, the cult of LGBT is currently attempting to unravel the 1st Amendment rights to freedom of religious convictions. They aren't even shy about it.

 

[WinterBorn]

Whether or not polygamous marriage will become legal at some point is a far different question than whether it will become legal within 5 years.

Gay marriage is not yet legal throughout the country, and it's been more than a decade since the first state legalized it. Why, if that is taking as long as it is to gain acceptance across the nation, do you think polygamy will gain acceptance so much faster?

There are several thousand polygamist clusters, some with high powered constituitonal attorneys, like Jonathan Turley, waiting to appeal their claims INSTANTLY upon the proclamation that the 14th applies anew to sexual orientation-behaviors. Like they argue in the quotes in my last post, the precedent of dissolving the traditional nuclear family cannot exclude others "in love". The polygamists in essence are waiting in the wings for the cult of LGBT to set the precedent at the highest federal level with the blessing of the US Supreme Court. Once the skids have been greased all the way down the length of the chute, polygamy will follow after the log jam has been completely cleared for them already by the cult of LGBT. It will literally happen overnight.

Period. This is what everyone warned about and legal scholars knew and know for a fact is the case. There is no such thing as a mythical slippery slope. It is a factual one.

And that doesn't even begin to address how dangerous to the American legal system and democracy itself setting a precedent that a minority set of behaviors that are objectionable to the majority get to dictate to them. http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...wins-gay-legal-challenges-simple-as-that.html As we've already seen, the cult of LGBT is currently attempting to unravel the 1st Amendment rights to freedom of religious convictions. They aren't even shy about it.

Ok, let's pretend that this is actually a thing that might happen. Polygamists will jump out of the closet and demand to be married to their partners.

And?? What possible bearing does that have on you? How does the fact that 3 people or 4 people get married have to do with you?

 

[Silhouette]

Ok, let's pretend that this is actually a thing that might happen. Polygamists will jump out of the closet and demand to be married to their partners.

And?? What possible bearing does that have on you? How does the fact that 3 people or 4 people get married have to do with you?

The question of this thread is what bearing does it have on the middle bloc of women voters, not me. If you want to start a thread about what bearing it has on me, feel free. But before you get a warning, I suggest addressing the topic of the thread.

And please do stop dancing around offering up what percentage you're guessing of middle bloc women voters will shy away from a platform that will include polygamy? It's a number between 0-100%. I'll wait.