(09-02-2014 10:10 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  I would move, but you pay 'em regardless.......I'll stick with my schtick...it's more cost effective....

does anyone really give a crap about utah....should be similar in vanity whilst promotin' missippy....it's a total non-issue but 'they' like to prey on the meek....

you gettin' it yet???????????????? (hint...you are 'they')

what a weak arse argument you continually present.....

Does anyone have any idea what that was supposed to mean?

(09-02-2014 11:41 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(09-02-2014 11:39 AM)mlb Wrote:  Yes, the nagging has to be off the charts.

Just imagine how much toilet paper you must keep on hand.

Just imagine how many tampons are in the house

(09-02-2014 12:12 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(09-02-2014 11:41 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(09-02-2014 11:39 AM)mlb Wrote:  Yes, the nagging has to be off the charts.

Just imagine how much toilet paper you must keep on hand.

Just imagine how many tampons are in the house

Yikes! on all three.

Isn't polygamy as close to traditional marriage as one can get? That Old Testament sure had quite a few dudes with numerous wives.

(09-02-2014 11:28 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  As long as no theft, fraud, violence or destruction of property is involved...I could care less how many wives a man has. I think they are crazy as hell..but...none of my business.

pretty much my view.

(09-02-2014 12:28 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  Isn't polygamy as close to traditional marriage as one can get? That Old Testament sure had quite a few dudes with numerous wives.

Agreed.

As a states'-rights proponent, I think Utah (or any other state) should be permitted to recognize polygamous "marriages" if they want to, and Vermont should be free to recognize "gay marriages" if they want to, etc., etc., etc.

My problem is when the federal judiciary moves in and announces by decree that All states Must recognize these "marriages" whether they want to or not. No constitutional basis for such decrees.

(09-02-2014 12:39 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(09-02-2014 12:28 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  Isn't polygamy as close to traditional marriage as one can get? That Old Testament sure had quite a few dudes with numerous wives.

Agreed.

As a states'-rights proponent, I think Utah (or any other state) should be permitted to recognize polygamous "marriages" if they want to, and Vermont should be free to recognize "gay marriages" if they want to, etc., etc., etc.

My problem is when the federal judiciary moves in and announces by decree that All states Must recognize these "marriages" whether they want to or not. No constitutional basis for such decrees.

agreed

(09-02-2014 12:39 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(09-02-2014 12:28 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  Isn't polygamy as close to traditional marriage as one can get? That Old Testament sure had quite a few dudes with numerous wives.

Agreed.

As a states'-rights proponent, I think Utah (or any other state) should be permitted to recognize polygamous "marriages" if they want to, and Vermont should be free to recognize "gay marriages" if they want to, etc., etc., etc.

My problem is when the federal judiciary moves in and announces by decree that All states Must recognize these "marriages" whether they want to or not. No constitutional basis for such decrees.

Think about the ridiculousness you are advocating.

(09-02-2014 12:35 PM)fsquid Wrote:  

(09-02-2014 11:28 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  As long as no theft, fraud, violence or destruction of property is involved...I could care less how many wives a man has. I think they are crazy as hell..but...none of my business.

pretty much my view.

Pretty much a libertarian huh?

This is why the party of "anything goes" doesn't get more than 5% of the electorate. No regard for the family unit.

(09-02-2014 12:52 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-02-2014 12:35 PM)fsquid Wrote:  

(09-02-2014 11:28 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  As long as no theft, fraud, violence or destruction of property is involved...I could care less how many wives a man has. I think they are crazy as hell..but...none of my business.

pretty much my view.

Pretty much a libertarian huh?

This is why the party of "anything goes" doesn't get more than 5% of the electorate. No regard for the family unit.

Really couldn't cares less if people share my views.

(09-02-2014 12:53 PM)fsquid Wrote:  

(09-02-2014 12:52 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-02-2014 12:35 PM)fsquid Wrote:  

(09-02-2014 11:28 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  As long as no theft, fraud, violence or destruction of property is involved...I could care less how many wives a man has. I think they are crazy as hell..but...none of my business.

pretty much my view.

Pretty much a libertarian huh?

This is why the party of "anything goes" doesn't get more than 5% of the electorate. No regard for the family unit.

Really couldn't cares less if people share my views.

Not caring has worked so well in this country.

(09-02-2014 12:55 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-02-2014 12:53 PM)fsquid Wrote:  

(09-02-2014 12:52 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-02-2014 12:35 PM)fsquid Wrote:  

(09-02-2014 11:28 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  As long as no theft, fraud, violence or destruction of property is involved...I could care less how many wives a man has. I think they are crazy as hell..but...none of my business.

pretty much my view.

Pretty much a libertarian huh?

This is why the party of "anything goes" doesn't get more than 5% of the electorate. No regard for the family unit.

Really couldn't cares less if people share my views.

Not caring has worked so well in this country.

as long as my name is spell right on the check brother.

I pity the poor kids from this "marriages". All sharing a father. I'll bet now that it's not against the law, the Latter Day Saints will hooray this law, they only stopped because it was bad publicity and a law.

(09-02-2014 12:56 PM)fsquid Wrote:  

(09-02-2014 12:55 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-02-2014 12:53 PM)fsquid Wrote:  

(09-02-2014 12:52 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-02-2014 12:35 PM)fsquid Wrote:  pretty much my view.

Pretty much a libertarian huh?

This is why the party of "anything goes" doesn't get more than 5% of the electorate. No regard for the family unit.

Really couldn't cares less if people share my views.

Not caring has worked so well in this country.

as long as my name is spell right on the check brother.

yep, pretty much what I suspected. As long as you get yours, to hell with the moral fiber of this country.

Let's allow adults to marry children and animals.

(09-02-2014 01:03 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-02-2014 12:56 PM)fsquid Wrote:  

(09-02-2014 12:55 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-02-2014 12:53 PM)fsquid Wrote:  

(09-02-2014 12:52 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Pretty much a libertarian huh?

This is why the party of "anything goes" doesn't get more than 5% of the electorate. No regard for the family unit.

Really couldn't cares less if people share my views.

Not caring has worked so well in this country.

as long as my name is spell right on the check brother.

yep, pretty much what I suspected. As long as you get yours, to hell with the moral fiber of this country.

Let's allow adults to marry children and animals.

While one wife is all I care to have who am I to say someone can't have more than one if all involved are consenting? A man can live with as many women as he wishes, have as many children as he wants to with them, but if he chooses to make a commitment to them only then is it against the law.

Can anyone address why this is not considered traditional marriage, seeing as the earliest parts of the bible have numerous examples of polygamy?

(09-02-2014 01:36 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  Can anyone address why this is not considered traditional marriage, seeing as the earliest parts of the bible have numerous examples of polygamy?

You have to understand that if you don't completely agree with Okla on everything that you are a liberal. If you don't have his exact morals, you are bring society down. This is another example of it.

(09-02-2014 01:31 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(09-02-2014 01:03 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-02-2014 12:56 PM)fsquid Wrote:  

(09-02-2014 12:55 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-02-2014 12:53 PM)fsquid Wrote:  Really couldn't cares less if people share my views.

Not caring has worked so well in this country.

as long as my name is spell right on the check brother.

yep, pretty much what I suspected. As long as you get yours, to hell with the moral fiber of this country.

Let's allow adults to marry children and animals.

While one wife is all I care to have who am I to say someone can't have more than one if all involved are consenting? A man can live with as many women as he wishes, have as many children as he wants to with them, but if he chooses to make a commitment to them only then is it against the law.

exactly, and when some fringe group wants to marry children and animals you'll totally be ok with that. Who are we to object?

(09-02-2014 01:36 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  Can anyone address why this is not considered traditional marriage, seeing as the earliest parts of the bible have numerous examples of polygamy?

It is certainly a more legitimate arrangement than a gay one. The polygamists have a better argument IMO.

Why is this so hard to understand for so many people?

Marriage is a sacred union between a man and woman. Not a man and man. Not a woman and a woman. Or a man and 10 women -or even a man woman and a tree.

Losing sight of this opens the doors for all kinds of new laws and unions - At what point do you want to salvage society?