Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You very much seem to have your own idea about this percentage you keep harping on about, and you also seem to think that anyone's answer that doesn't jibe with your own is a lie or misrepresentation. You do not appear to really want an honest discussion about this subject; rather you are waiting to use answers you disagree with to somehow try and denigrate the posters who give those answers, or make some point that requires you to first shoot down someone else's opinion.
If WinterBorn gives you a percentage it might alert Democratic strategists? Really? Maybe this thread belongs in the conspiracy theory section....
Wrong.
Here's what I already said on this page about that percentage. Bear in mind that as a person I don't regard Ashtara highly either:
Of course we cannot believe rightwinger's absurd "0%" estimate. Naturally, some women will be quite put off and offended by the idea of hubby taking another younger, prettier wife legally so the number cannot be merely "0%".
I think actually that Ashtara's estimate of 60% is far more accurate. Though not for the strange reasons she cited. I think it's just a genetic thing, a woman wanting to keep a mate to herself. That way his resources won't be spread too thin and any children a woman has with him will stand a better chance of survival therefore. Monogamy might be a survival instinct. Certainly many bird species have figured out that equation and mapped it into their DNA.
If you're willing to stipulate that 60% is a good ballpark, we can move on to talking about why that is.
If you are going to quote me, like the badass that I am, at least get it right.
I said 66.6 percent. As in two thirds.
Not 60 percent. Not three fifths. There is a significant mathematical difference.
If you are going to quote me, like the badass that I am, at least get it right.
I said 66.6 percent. As in two thirds.
Not 60 percent. Not three fifths. There is a significant mathematical difference.
OK, ass who is bad.
66.6 percent. It's your favorite number. I get it. Pentagram and everything.
Anyway, using that percent we can launch a new topic of "since roughly 60% of middle bloc women voters would reject a platform that brings polygamy marriage with it [on purpose or inadvertently], is the democratic party's embrace of the cult of LGBT a wise political strategy?"
If you are going to quote me, like the badass that I am, at least get it right.
I said 66.6 percent. As in two thirds.
Not 60 percent. Not three fifths. There is a significant mathematical difference.
OK, ass who is bad.
66.6 percent. It's your favorite number. I get it. Pentagram and everything.
Anyway, using that percent we can launch a new topic of "since roughly 60% of middle bloc women voters would reject a platform that brings polygamy marriage with it [on purpose or inadvertently], is the democratic party's embrace of the cult of LGBT a wise political strategy?"
Where the fuck do you get a pentagram out of 66.6?
OK, ass who is bad.
66.6 percent. It's your favorite number. I get it. Pentagram and everything.
Anyway, using that percent we can launch a new topic of "since roughly 60% of middle bloc women voters would reject a platform that brings polygamy marriage with it [on purpose or inadvertently], is the democratic party's embrace of the cult of LGBT a wise political strategy?"
Where the fuck do you get a pentagram out of 66.6?
Believe me when I tell you Sil has trouble comprehending concrete principles along with the abstract ones.
There is no cult of LGBT, so the Dems can ignore that.
However, it will condemn, count on it, hetero-fascism.
There is no cult of LGBT, so the Dems can ignore that.
However, it will condemn, count on it, hetero-fascism.
Sounds like the drums are already beating for an inquisition before the ink is even dried on the IRS tax-exempt status for the church of LGBT...
"it's good" as the queen said to the evil witch, "when you are beaten"There is no cult of LGBT, so the Dems can ignore that.
However, it will condemn, count on it, hetero-fascism.
Sounds like the drums are already beating for an inquisition before the ink is even dried on the IRS tax-exempt status for the church of LGBT...
the hetero-fascists have dealt themselves a very poor hand
Where the fuck do you get a pentagram out of 66.6?
Believe me when I tell you Sil has trouble comprehending concrete principles along with the abstract ones.
666? Pentagram? Nevermind...
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
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?
The Bible actually supports polygamy although not in excess. It's funny how Christians pick and choose what they support and don't from the Bible. Personally, I don't see a problem with polygamy although I would never want more than one wife. One is enough for any man to deal with, lol.
The Bible actually supports polygamy although not in excess. It's funny how Christians pick and choose what they support and don't from the Bible. Personally, I don't see a problem with polygamy although I would never want more than one wife. One is enough for any man to deal with, lol.
That's great and all. But for the purposes of this thread we will just assume that American law works off of "same or similar" precedent. And therefore, we know polygamy will be legal within probably about the length of time it will take to appeal to the Supreme Court. About 2-5 years.
So all I'm saying is, advertise that now instead of "easing the needle in". Unless of course you're not in favor of informed public and voters?
Who's the 'we' that knows polygamy will be legal in 2-5 years? Because it doesn't seem to be anyone in this thread but you.
