Who wants more than one wife?!

 

Nathan Collier.

 

http://www.krtv.com/story/29450937/montana-polygamist-family-applies-for-marriage-license

Liberal knickers in a wad about it :

Excerpt:

If you want to argue that polygamy and marriage equality are the same thing, well, they’re not. If you want respect for how consenting adults arrange their households, though, you’ve got it. That does not however mean that because one group that has fought for friggin’ decades for basic recognition and respect finally has achieved something, that every fringe group — and yeah, sister wife families, you are fringe — gets a piece of the action too.

From the National Review: Polygamy- Gay Marriage Supports Struggle To Make a Case Against It

---

I've really never been upset about the idea. The only time the Bible speaks about a "husband of one wife" is in regards to pastors. And there's a stat in the NR article that throughout history, 85% of cultures practiced it. Heck, I might marry now if I can split the job of putting up with a husband with another woman. :

What's tickling me is that the articles above show such liberal hypocrisy and their narcissism. How dare anyone else steal their show!!!

I get your point.

At the end of the day though it would still be a contract between consenting adults. Whether multiple parties are involved or not.

 

What is the difference between a man/man or a woman/woman or a man/woman 'marriage' and a man/woman/woman or a woman/man/man 'marriage'?

 

The progressives will claim that they are against it right now, but when the fight gets closer to being over, they'll flip sides and pretend they've been fighting for it for "friggin'" decades.

Liars and hypocrites the progressives are.

 

JB nobody is very good at predicting the future.

I simply cannot see Americans tolerating orgies in the bedroom with multiple partners however.

Sodomy is a different story. Sodomy is both hetero- as well as ****-.

Orgiastic love fests is totally different -- it won't fly.

 

Meh, got no problem with it. Consenting adults and all that jazz.

 

Who wants more than one wife?!

Okaaaaaaay, how about a line up similar to Charliese Theron, Cathrine Bell and perhaps a Lilly Evangalene?! --not the fat bag of guts women that this guy has on that reality show.

I could go for this.
Could I keep up with the demands?

Hmmmmm--?!
One could try.

But seriously--it's the financial demands that are the killer.
Multiple wives, children, costs and so forth. It would be a back breaker.
And talk about the shoes these women would want.... Jeeze!!

But if people want to do it, who are we to stop them?

 

But seriously--it's the financial demands that are the killer.
Multiple wives, children, costs and so forth.

Actually from a Darwinian perspective that is a huge benefit.

The brightest/most successful men can afford multiple wives and therefore produce the more children with similar traits. Course that is based on the idea that the men actually SUPPORT their wives/children.

 

Four Max.

Only M can have more than 4.

 

If the people who want to be polygamists are doing so because they are Christian, progressives will NEVER be for it.

 

But it will be the muzzies that push it through... Cultural sensitivity and all that crap.

There is a school of thought that posits polygamy as being a win for women.
In many cultures a woman would be better off being the fourth wife of a rich man, than the only wife of a poor man.
The downside is that it crowds out a large number of young, usually poorer, men from the ability to win a wife. Then you get lot's of angry, unloved, young men, and poof - we're the Middle East.

I can also see the lawyers wanting this... imagine the divorce cases!

 

I cant wait for the insurance claims from a single house hold wage earner with obamacare; 30 spouses, 96 children, 58 sets of braces, 300 cavities, 12 appendectomies, 120 broken bones + + + . All because under a marriage legal loop hole one person decides to insure the entire community.

 

Not sure if Dental is covered under failurecare. :upsidedown:

 

Don't care if they're Christian, atheist, Hindu, Pagan, Jewish, Wiccan, or Scientologist. Consenting adults = got no problem with it.

 

In a related story: Kentucky woman and German Shepard apply for marriage license.........

 

Give it a month, but I would bet a CA man and a donkey first. :

 

Heck, I would have been happy to have one wife. It is hard enough to find a good woman as it is now. Once you lock even more women with one man there will be major shortages. 1 guy with 99 wives and 98 guys that have to remain single (unless they marry each other now that it is legal).

 

I would say religious polygamists have a better claim to marriage "rights" than the gays ever did. After all, freedom of religious practice is actually enumerated in the Constitution. Freedom of sexual orientation is not.

 

(1) If you are looking for a Christian reason to oppose polygamy, there isn't one. So, as far as moral outrage goes, this one is a feather compared to homosexuality that Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all oppose.

(2) Liberals have supported serial polygamy (endless divorce and remarriage) for years, as well as "open" marriages, affairs, etc - so they have no moral opposition to the sexual licence of it.

(3) The tax issue is a field of thorns, however, and THAT is what they hope to avoid, because to save taxes a government will ban anything, and if poly = ****, and poly is banned over taxes, that washes back to **** in the same way **** is washing to poly.

(4) Not only taxes, but benefits become an issue as well. I could add three wives and seven children and not feel much poorer (two more cars, more clothes, a bit more food, and a bunk house out back in expense). I would then, however, have no more income taxes, food stamps for over a dozen, and that is without any of them holding jobs. Two of the wives could have jobs and the wage averaging would still be a huge advantage.

(5) Throughout their whining campaign, the homosexuals said there was no slippery slope. Any slippery slope proves that their lies were lies.

(6) With polygamy, you cheapen marriage as a publicly accepted institution. They wanted not the rights of marriage, or else they would have accepted Civil Union. They wanted the normalcy, social esteem, and acceptance of traditional marriage. The more who get in on it, the less the word marriage means, and the less of what they really want (normalization of their perversion) they get.

It is like the Beverly Hillbillies. So long as it is only them, there is esteem for where they are at, even if they do not deserve it. If the rest of Arkansas, however, moved in, being in the Beverly Hills would cease to mean exclusivity and would then mean nothing more than living in Arkansas did.

 

(2) Liberals have supported serial polygamy (endless divorce and remarriage) for years, as well as "open" marriages, affairs, etc - so they have no moral opposition to the sexual licence of it.

To keep this fair, evangelical Christians have a higher divorce rate than the national average. And remarriage is common.

http://www.baylor.edu/mediacommunications/news.php?action=story&story=137892

 

Now we get into legal status of wives in regard to inhertance, etc. "first wife" status? I guess OBama would like to defer to the Middle East muslim model for guidance. ..... ahhh unintended consequences! doncha love it?

 

Now we get into legal status of wives in regard to inhertance, etc. "first wife" status?

Wouldn't the remaining wives still be married though?

 

I have a problem with all the above. Government has no business in the bedroom between consenting adults.

 

You can have more than one kid, so why not more than one spouse?

 

Respect, consent, love, mutual support, if those things are in the union, more power to 'them'. I don't have to answer for 'their' choices.

 

Frig em young, knock em all up, then let uncle Sam pick up the tab. That's how we roll in AmeriKA. What's the difference between these people and the ghetto daddies who knock up a dozen baby mamas and then split? The polygamist lives with the baby mamas while the gang bangers move from one government financed crib to another. In the end, the tax payers wind up paying for their respective "flocks."

 

Also with regards to methodology, you have to get married to get divorced. The comparison to the population as a whole who are not getting married at the same rates as evagelicals is flawed.

 

I am not stating the study is right or wrong, but simply a bad source of information. Of course the raw study might actually be beneficial.

 

I told you guys, make some popcorn, sit back and enjoy! It will get freakier and freakier, Just like the death throes of a wounded animal, more intense and violent the nearer to the culmination. The only thing more amusing than the overall situation will be the boob tube pundits doing the blame tapdance.

And dont worry about the 2016 elections. Voting on the new president is tantemount to electing a new captain of the Titanic an hour after she hit the iceberg.... hmmmm I need to buy some more ammo.

 

I'd rather see one rooster with two hens than two roosters humping. lol

 

The women in the salon.com picture look like Manson "family" girls. Creepy.

 

To the poster that says divorce is rampant amoungst Christians...I will say that there are many divorced folks in our church; however, 1. they divorced when they were young and stupid 2. spouse left them (abandonment) or 3. they divorced before they were even believers.

I never look at a moment in time or a past sin when evaluating a person's spirituality. I wouldn't even look at a homosexual that way. I look at the last 20 years that they've been living for the Lord in consistent Christian living.

Back to the OP...all manner and forms of sexual perversions will be coming to America soon enough.

 

To the poster that says divorce is rampant amoungst Christians...I will say that there are many divorced folks in our church; however, 1. they divorced when they were young and stupid 2. spouse left them (abandonment) or 3. they divorced before they were even believers.

I can see #3 as a valid reason, and #2 if it involved adultery on the part of the partner who did the abandoning, but I've never read anywhere in scripture that you get biblical divorce passes for marrying when young and stupid.

 

Why stop at polygamy? If I wasn't married already, I might want to marry my dog.

I remember a newspaper article back in the early 1970's where a guy wanted to marry his horse. He said if a man can marry a man, and a woman can marry a woman, then he can marry his horse.

 

Why stop at polygamy? If I wasn't married already, I might want to marry my dog.

Folks should be allowed to marry whoever will consent to marry them back. Dogs and horses can't consent so you can't marry them.

 

The penalty for having multiple wives is having multiple mothers-in-law.

))))